Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Hoylake Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; Amendments made.

Motion made, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

King's Consent signified; Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Scarborough) Bill,

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).

Address for:
Return showing (1) Particulars of all Aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation have been issued and whose oaths of allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1934, been registered at the Home Office; (2) Information as to any Aliens who have, during the same period, obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the legislature; and (3) Particulars of cases in which certificates of naturalisation have been revoked during the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 129, of Session 1933–34)."—[Captain Wallace.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN AND BRITISH SOMALILAND (ITALIAN AEROPLANES).

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Italian military aeroplanes have been permitted during the past six months to fly over the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan; and whether permission has in any case been refused?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Samuel Hoare): In the period between 30th January and 26th July applications were made for 15 Italian military aircraft to fly over the Sudan: of these flights four were cancelled and one has not yet taken place; in no case was permission refused.

Mr. MANDER: Would it be correct to assume that, in the unfortunate event of hostilities breaking out, the position would be revised?

Sir S. HOARE: I should prefer to deal with that question when it arises.

Mr. MANDER: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Italian military aeroplanes have been permitted during the past six months to fly over British Somaliland; and whether permission has in any case been refused?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The answer to the first part of the question is 26. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

INSURANCE LAW.

Mr. MOREING: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will immediately ask for report from His Majesty's Ambassador in China on the new insurance business law proposed by the Chinese Government, with special reference to the effect of the proposed law on foreign insurance companies operating in China?

Sir S. HOARE: Full reports on this matter have already been received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Peking, who has not failed to draw the attention of the Chinese Government to the provisions of the proposed law which affect the interests of British insurance companies in China.

DRUG TRAFFIC.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the efficacy of the efforts to combat the manufacture and traffic in narcotics in the northern provinces of China?

Sir S. HOARE: The Chinese Government have recently promulgated new regulations for the control of the drug
traffic in the whole of China. His Majesty's Consular officers in China have been instructed to report on the efficacy of the new measures, but their reports have not yet been received.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the reports be published when they are received?

Sir S. HOARE: I could not say offhand. I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAN (MARITIME REGULATIONS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Iranian Government in forbidding ships to fly their national flags when in Iranian waters; and what representations he proposes to make to the Iranian Government on the matter?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, but according to my present information the prohibition is only intended to apply to vessels permanently and exclusively employed in some Iranian port, and British ships entering Iranian ports from the high seas will not be affected. The matter is still under examination, and if representations are found to be necessary they will be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS (ANGLOGERMAN AGREEMENT).

Mr. COCKS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what notice is required to enable the British Government to denounce the Anglo-German Naval Agreement?

Sir S. HOARE: I would invite the attention of the hon. Member to the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Note which I addressed to Herr von Ribbentrop on 18th June. In that sentence it is stated that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom regard the Agreement as a permanent and definite Agreement, and a similar expression of the German view will be found in the last paragraph of Herr von Ribbentrop's Note in reply. No provision is made in the Agreement for denunciation.

Mr. COCKS: Does that mean that this Agreement is for ever, and that we can never get out of this disastrous arrangement?

Sir S. HOARE: Denunciation would have to take place by mutual agreement.

Mr. COCKS: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, at the time of the signing of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, the British Government were aware that the German naval authorities had already laid down two battleships of 26,000 tons displacement?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): No, Sir. The Admiralty were aware that the German naval authorities had already laid down two capital ships, but the tonnage of these ships was unknown.

Mr. COCKS: In view of the fact that the Admiralty did not know what the German programme was when they signed the Agreement, will they consider now cancelling the Agreement?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (PROPOSED EASTERN NON-AGGRESSION PACT).

Mr. COCKS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has taken any steps to obtain from the German Government a definite decision as to whether that Government will sign an Eastern pact of non-aggression?

Sir S. HOARE: Since my speech in the course of the Debate in this House on 11th July, I have on several occasions reverted to the matter with the German Government. I have, however, up to the present received no definite reply.

Mr. COCKS: In view of the importance of this question, will the Government put the strongest pressure upon the German Government to get a definite decision on this matter? Will they also inform them that unless there is a definite decision the Government will withdraw the Anglo-German Naval Agreement?

Sir S. HOARE: The fact that I have, on several occasions since 11th July, reverted to the matter with the German Government—

Mr. THORNE: There is no German Government.

Sir S. HOARE: —shows the interest that we take in this question and the urgency with which we regard it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ENLISTMENT.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of applications for enlistment in the Navy during the past six months, and the number accepted?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Sir Victor Warrender): The number of applications for entry into the Royal Navy and Royal Marines during the six months ending 30th June last was 25,459. The number of candidates required and accepted was 3,726.

Mr. PALING: Does the number of acceptances represent any improvement on past times?

Sir V. WARRENDER: The number of acceptances represents the number of men who are required. If the hon. Member wants any further details, perhaps he will put down a question.

Mr. PALING: That does not mean that all the others were refused because they were medically unfit?

Sir V. WARRENDER: No, Sir.

COAL AND OIL FUELS.

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what quantity of coal was used in the Navy in 1919, 1920, 1925, 1930, 1931, 1934, and up to date in 1935; the quantity of oil for the same period; and where the coal and oil are produced, respectively?

Sir V. WARRENDER: As the answer includes a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The quantities of coal used are:


Financial year.
Tons.


1919
2,486,000


1920
842,500


1925
418,700


1930
244,300


1931
188,000


1934
180,000


1935 (to date)
60,000

It is not desirable in the national interest to state the quantities of oil fuel used. The coal is drawn mainly from the South Wales, Northumberland and
Scottish fields. The oil comes mainly from Iran and Trinidad, with small local supplies derived from Burma, Borneo and the United States of America.

Sir W. JENKINS: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the strategical value of the Welsh coalfields and the present distress in that area, he will reconsider the whole question of oil as against coal fuel?

Sir V. WARRENDER: As has been repeatedly explained in this House and elsewhere, the substitution of coal for oil fuel in His Majesty's ships would entail so serious a loss of efficiency that the change suggested is quite out of the question.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: Will the hon. Baronet consider the question of some of the naval ships taking to dual firing, which I understand has been adopted by some of the naval ships of other Powers?

Sir V. WARRENDER: Yes, Sir, but experience has shown that there are serious difficulties in this system.

BUILDING PROGRAMME.

Mr. G. HALL: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the danger of the publication of unofficial statements of the Government's naval programme until 1942, he will now consider making an official pronouncement on the matter?

Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: No, Sir. The naval programme of this country cannot be determined until the results of the Naval Conference and the programmes of other Powers are known, and as no official pronouncement can therefore be made, no attention need be paid to unofficial and irresponsible statements.

Mr. HALL: Will not the First Lord take the House and the country into his confidence and state whether the Board of Admiralty intend to have an early replacement of battleships, and an increase in the number of cruisers from 50 to 70?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Of course, we are going to rebuild our Fleet, as we are doing at present, but I can give no pronouncement as to future programmes. The House will have the Navy Estimates wider control from year to year.

Mr. HALL: Has the projected programme for battleships already been submitted to America, Germany, France, and other important naval Powers?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Naturally, we have had to put forward a hypothetical programme to see what we want, and we cannot possibly say, and I cannot make any pronouncement to the House, until the Naval Conference takes place, and we know what other countries are going to do.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is it not correct that the Government cannot commit themselves to any building without the approval of the Estimates by this House?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Naturally it must always be under the control of the House of Commons.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: What is the difference between a hypothetical programme and a projected programme?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (PRISONERS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that political prisoners in Palestine have gone on hunger strike in protest against the action of the Government in compelling them to labour and to wear prison dress as though they were criminals; that those on hunger strike include boys and girls aged 17 and three women suffering from tuberculosis; that representations against this treatment have been made without effect, and that a deputation of about 50 people was fired on by the police; and whether he will have immediate inquiries made into the matter?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I have no official information on this subject, but I have asked the High Commissioner for Palestine for a report. I will communicate with the hon. Member when I receive his reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

ENLISTMENT.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of applications for enlistment in the Royal Air Force during the past six months, and the number accepted?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): During the six months ending 24th July, 27,938 definite applications for enlistment were received and of these, 3,614 have been accepted.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many were refused on grounds of physical fitness?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.

AERODROME SITE, HOWDEN.

Major CARVER: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is prepared to consider the existing old aerodrome site at Howden, in the East Riding, where about 350 acres of prepared landing ground, dwelling houses, and all necessary arrangements suitable for a flying ground already exist, and which can be obtained at a reasonable price; and whether he will institute inquiries with a view to purchasing what was recently Government property, still equipped for modern requirements?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The site has been examined, but is unsuitable for present requirements on account of the heavy nature of the soil and the prevalence of fog in the district.

Major CARVER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department has already acquired land at Church Fenton and Driffield, five minutes' flying distance from the ground at Howden; and does he not think that the Department could have saved money by acquiring this land, which was already laid out for flying?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I can certainly answer that question, because I happen to be familiar, as an East Riding man, with every inch of the ground. Howden is densely foggy, while Driffield is comparatively free from fog.

OUT-OF-BOUNDS ORDER, HORNSEA.

Mr. T. SMITH: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any information as to the ban placed upon the Hornsea Urban District Council's promenade, dance hall, café, and gardens by the Royal Air Force stationed at Catfoss; and whether what is felt to be an injustice to the residents and visitors at the height of the holiday season can be removed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that the "out-of-bounds" order, which was a purely temporary measure, was withdrawn last week. I have, however, called for a report of the circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (AIR TRAVEL FACILITIES),

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLE: 22 and 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether there is any flying service now available between London and Leeds; and, if not, how is it suggested that Members of Parliament may fly to their constituencies according to recent announcements;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that the company which served Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the North-East Coast in flying services has ceased to function, he can say what service is available for Members of Parliament who desire to fly to their constituencies in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the North-East Coast?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The arrangements for the issue of "air warrants" to hon. Members are necessarily applicable only to cases where suitable air services are in operation. I regret that there is at present no such service connecting London directly with Leeds, or with Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the North-East Coast.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is there any prospect of these services being resumed; and can my right hon. Friend say what is the cause of the cessation of the services that have been in operation, and whether it is the same service that operates between London and Leeds and between London and Newcastle?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like to have notice of all those questions.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Surely my right hon. Friend has the facts in his possession? There was a service which Members of Parliament had the right to use, and now it is not available. Surely it is the business of my right hon. Friend to supply the deficiency?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If my hon. Friend means that it is the business of the Government to establish a Government air service, I am afraid I cannot
agree. My hon. Friend asked me a specific question, which I have answered. If he is asking me now what are the circumstances in which a private undertaking ceased to run a service, surely he must see that I cannot possibly answer that question without notice.

Mr. LOGAN: Are any arrangements being made whereby Members can fly away from their constituencies?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I expect that in some cases the constituents will arrange for that.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: When my right hon. Friend speaks of cases in which suitable services are in operation, does he mean suitable according to a standard laid down by the Air Ministry, or any public service?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I meant services which would suit Members.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not possible to get to Newcastle by the London and North-Eastern Railway?

COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the terms of reference of the two committees he has recently convened to assist him in the development of civil aviation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The two committees to which my hon. Friend refers are as follow:

(1) a standing committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Warren Fisher, to consider questions of international air communications which affect more than one Department.
(2) A committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Maybury, to consider and report upon measures which might be adopted by His Majesty's Government or by local authorities for assisting in the promotion of civil aviation in the United Kingdom and their probable cost. The committee is to take into account the requirements of the Post Office for air mails and the relation between aviation and other forms of transport.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, when he comes to consider these matters, he will make a departure from the past policy of loading with subsidies
those companies which are subsidised and refusing to support financially those companies which have entered this business on their own commercial initiative?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that the only undertaking which I ought to give to the House, and which I gladly give, is that I will consider the reports of these committees absolutely without prejudice and on their merits.

Captain BALFOUR: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the reports?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I would not give an undertaking about that. Where you have all the Departments that can contribute anything in the matter in conference together, that is really a standing committee of the Government, and I do not think I ought to be pressed to publish their confidential reports.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Will these committees be in a position to advise the right hon. Gentleman as to the extension of the number of companies to whom financial assistance can be given by the Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is no limitation whatever on the range of activity or research, investigation recommendation of these committees.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD SIGNS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many classified roads do not bear on the signposts the classification letter A or B; and whether, in view of the importance of this subject on account of pending legislation on ribbon development, and the difficulty of ascertaining whether or not a road has been classified for the purposes of Road Fund grants, he will arrange for a new edition of the list of classified roads in continuation of the list published in 1923?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): With reference to the first part of the question, I will again draw the attention of highway authorities to their obligations in the matter of displaying letters and numbers on each classified
road at suitable intervals. With regard to the second part of the question, the complete list of classified roads and numbers forms a large volume, and I should not anticipate that a revised issue of the last edition would be in general demand. The Ribbon Development Bill requires highway authorities to deposit at their offices plans showing all the roads which are the subject of restrictions in force. Further, there is provision for advertisement and for a register to be kept, so that all who may be affected by restrictions which may be brought into force by resolutions of highway authorities may, if they so desire, receive notice.

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport how the present number of public service vehicles licensed for operation in this country compares with the number licensed at the period immediately preceding the institution of their control by the Traffic Commissioner?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The numbers of hackney vehicles with a seating capacity for more than eight persons for which motor vehicle licences were current at any time during the quarters ended 30th September, 1930 and 1934, were 52,648 and 45,689 respectively. Notwithstanding the reduction in the numbers, which is accounted for by the disappearance of about 8,000 vehicles seating not more than 14 persons, there has been a slight increase in the aggregate number of seats available, owing to the increased seating capacity of the vehicles now in use. The existing vehicles also run an increased mileage.

SPEED LIMIT, EDINBURGH.

Mr. GUY: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will endeavour to pronounce his decision without delay on the question of de-restriction of certain sections of road in Edinburgh following the local inquiry which was held on 8th July?

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that most of the 30-miles-perhour speed limit signs around Edinburgh have been erected several miles beyond the built-up area in such a way as to constitute a provocation to motorists to disregard them; and whether he will
approach the local authority with a view to securing a de-restriction of part of this area?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As a result of representations made to me, I recognised that there was cause for inquiry into the application of the 30-miles-per-hour speed limit to certain roads in Edinburgh, and such an inquiry was held on 8th July. I have now received the report of the inspector who held the inquiry. One or two matters remain to be clarified, and I shall give my decision without delay.

MOTOR DRIVING (ALCOHOL).

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the report he has received from the British Medical Association relating to alcohol and road safety can now be made available to Members of the House, and whether copies of the report can be obtained by the general public?

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the report of the committee of the British Medical Association on the influence of alcohol on motor driving; whether he will issue the report for the use of Members of Parliament; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The report to which my hon. Friends refer was issued with the "British Medical Journal" for 27th July, and is, therefore, generally available. The report does not itself suggest to me any definite line of action, but I am sure that the public will be grateful to the British Medical Association for the time and trouble they have taken in carrying out this inquiry, and for the interesting material which the report contains.

Mr. FOOT: In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport obtained this report following upon a promise which he kindly gave in this House, does he not think that the report dealing with a matter of such general importance should be generally available? How are Members to get it otherwise?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The report is published in the Journal, and can be obtained by anybody. If there were any general demand for it in the House, and Members had not found it possible to obtain a copy, I would willingly reconsider the question.

Mr. FOOT: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that this is not merely a medical matter, but is a House of Commons matter? It is merely incidental that it should appear in a professional magazine. Cannot it be made available to us?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am anxious to spare the taxpayer the expense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—of printing what is already available to the public. As I say, if there were any general desire for it in the House—and I do not gather that there is, from the applause we have just heard—I would willingly reconsider the matter.

Mr. FOOT: Having regard to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I beg to give notice that, if the opportunity arises, I will deal with this matter on the Adjournment on Friday.

TRAFFIC CONTROL.

Captain STRICKLAND: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether reports of observations taken at selected road junctions in his possession bear out complaints to the effect that the substitution of traffic signal lights for policemen, for the purposes of traffic control at certain road junctions in London, has resulted in increased traffic delay and congestion at those junctions?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir, not generally. With very few exceptions traffic lights have decreased traffic delay.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is it not a fact that these lights are being erected at a considerable number of minor crossings and it cannot be proved that they are of any assistance to traffic?

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Home Secretary in order to make a survey of certain parts of the West End?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We receive reports and I need hardly assure hon. Members that, if there is any particular junction that they have in mind which they think is adversely affected by the lights, I shall be happy to consider the matter.

HIGHWAY CODE (PEDESTRIANS).

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport what he proposes to do to encourage the observance of
paragraphs 89 and 90 of the Highway Code, which deal with the question of pedestrians walking on the side of the road or pavement in such a way as to face traffic?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am giving all the publicity possible to the Highway Code.

Mr. DUNCAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider co-operating with certain local authorities and large towns with a view to enforcing the change?

MOTOR DRIVERS' HOURS (AERATED WATER TRADE).

Mr. BURNETT: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the restriction of hours of driving, under Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, interferes seriously with the business of the aerated water trade during the hot spell in the summer months; that applications for extension of the hours have twice been refused, in spite of the fact that the day's journey is taken up only to a small extent in actual driving; and will he consider legislation to amend that Section of the Act?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Section 19 of the Act of 1930 begins:
with a view to protecting the public against the risks which arise in cases where the drivers of motor vehicles are suffering from excessive fatigue.…
The Section prescribes 11 hours as the maximum number of hours during which a driver may drive in any one day; "driving" includes work
in connection with a vehicle or the load carried thereby.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a report from the British Medical Association as to the effect of aerated waters on drivers?

NEW EAST LANCASHIRE ROAD.

Mr. TINKER: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to give the total cost of making the new East Lancashire road, Liverpool to Manchester, the amounts paid by the Ministry of Transport, the Lancashire County Council, and the other local authorities who were called upon to contribute?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The cost of the reconstruction of the East Lancashire Road from Liverpool to Manchester was
£2,721,799 6s. 9d., of which the Ministry of Transport contributed £2,036,190. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the amounts received from other interested authorities.

Mr. TINKER: Did it fall below the estimated total cost or is it more?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I prefer to answer that question accurately after notice.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Did that cost include the cost of lighting the road?

Following is the information:



£
s.
d.


Liverpool City
274,850
6
6


Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
75,925
3
7


Bootle County Borough
26,574
3
7


St. Helens County Borough
22,019
0
0


Lancashire County Council
286,239
13
1

Mr. TINKER: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is in a position to say whether the Lancashire County Council and the other local authorities through which the East Lancashire new road, Liverpool to Manchester passes, have come to a decision on the lighting of the road; and if part of the cost will be borne by the Ministry of Transport as it was in the making of the road?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is no power vested in the Minister of Transport to make grants towards the cost of the lighting of roads. For the information of the hon. Member I have learned that the urban district of Swinton and Pendlebury has lit the section of the road through its area.

Mr. TINKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any communication from the Lancashire County Council, and, if not, will he urge upon them to fulfil their part of the proposal?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have had many communications from the county council upon this subject and I have tried to assist the hon. Gentleman's point of view. I understand that the county council has decided to leave the question of lighting to the district councils concerned.

Mr. TINKER: It is a splendid road. If it were completed it would be beautiful.

CROSS STRAND TRAFFIC.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will draw the attention of the London County Council to the necessity of a subway or bridge to carry across the Strand traffic northbound from the new Waterloo bridge; and whether he would be prepared to make a contribution from the Road Fund towards the cost of this subway or bridge?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am conscious of the importance of the matter to which my hon. Friend draws attention, and any application from the London County Council for a grant from the Road Fund towards the cost of any such scheme would receive my most careful attention.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is it not one of the right hon. Gentleman's duties to protect the community against one of the worst results of this decision of the London County Council?

Mr. DUNCAN: Is not the London County Council the road authority for London?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION, SCOTLAND.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport the total sums spent on road construction in Scotland for each year since 1929 to 1934?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) on 19th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

SPEED LIMIT (MOTOR CYCLISTS, DERBYSHIRE).

Captain STRICKLAND: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charges of exceeding the speed limit at Shardlow, on 21st July, have been recorded by the Derbyshire police; and how many of these were made against motor cyclists carrying competition number boards?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I am informed by the Chief Contable of Derbyshire that the number of motor cyclists reported for exceeding the speed limit at Shardlow on 21st July
last was 24. Some of these cyclists were noticed to be carrying competition cards, but particulars were not recorded by the police.

Captain STRICKLAND: Will the right hno. Gentleman answer the first part of the question—the total number of charges for exceeding the speed limit brought against all classes on that date?

Sir J. SIMON: The information I have is the number of motor cyclists who were reported. As the hon. and gallant Member knows, it does not follow that proceedings will be taken in every case. I do not agree that it is a fact that the cases are limited to those who took part in this competition; the proceedings have no reference to that at all.

Captain STRICKLAND: Did the right hon. Gentleman ask the Chief Constable to supply him with the total number of charges on this particular day? Is he aware that a motor car proceeding between two motor cyclists who were charged with exceeding the speed limit was not proceeded against?

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is under a slight misapprehension. This was on 21st July, and it would be very soon to know how many charges there were. A number of people were warned and details have been collected, but I do not think that a decision as to proceedings has yet been taken in every case. Each individual will have every opportunity of explaining.

Captain STRICKLAND: 80.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of any complaints made against the motor cyclist competitors in the A.C.U. rally at Donnington, on 21st July, for exceeding the speed limit other than those made by the Derbyshire Constabulary, and that, according to the regulations of the A.C.U. competition, any competitor who exceeded 30 miles per hour through a restricted area, for which purpose official checkers were appointed, was disqualified?

Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the rally in question was open to competitors from all over the country, and without obtaining a special return from all police forces—which would involve an unjustifiable expenditure of time and money—I am not in a position to answer the
first part of the question. As regards the second part, I have no first-hand information as to the regulations which governed the competition.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, PLYMOUTH.

Mr. McGOVERN: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that grave charges have been made by W. J. Edmonds, 58, North Down Road, Plymouth, that electricity was being supplied direct from the mains without a recording meter to various individuals and concerns in the City of Plymouth, and in consequence the city was defrauded of large sums of money, and that a local investigation by the town council was suppressed by the influence of the parties involved in the allegations; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes," to the second part "No," and to the third part "Certainly," if the hon. Gentleman can lay before me any facts which lie within the competence of my Department and would seem to call for the course suggested.

Mr. McGOVERN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's atention been drawn to these charges in the document, and is it a fact that they are so grave, reflecting on a large number of local people, that an inquiry should be made?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am ready to answer that question. For many years past this gentleman has written to me and other Members of Parliament about certain grievances which he entertains. He was dismissed from the employment of the council. There was a local inquiry, but, as far as I can see, none of these matters come within the competence of my Department. I should be only too ready to consider any facts which the hon. Member can adduce which are within the competence of my Department.

Mr. McGOVERN: I will send them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS.

Mr. MOREING: 44.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what reply he has
given to the proposal by the Zoological Society for certain improvements on the eastern boundary of the Zoological Gardens?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am giving favourable consideration to a proposal under which the Zoological Society would, in connection with a rebuilding scheme of part of their gardens, be allowed to have the use of some small strips of land which are at present enclosed, and of which no use can be made in connection with the park. The proposed adjustment will not involve the removal of any trees, but will involve the re-planning of the eastern entrance to the gardens. As soon as definite plans have been drawn up, I will arrange for the usual drawings to be exhibited in the tea room.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE MIGRATION.

Mr. PETHERICK: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Royal Commission, on which each Dominion will be represented, to consider the question of migration within the Empire, with powers to call for all necessary evidence and with instructions to propound a scheme for the promotion of migration on a large scale?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion is a practicable one. In any case, it would not be open to any one Government within the Empire to appoint a Royal Commission of the kind which he proposes except with the consent of the other Governments concerned. It will be remembered, however, that considerable attention has recently been devoted to future policy as regards migration, and that the Government is still awaiting the views of some of the oversea Governments concerned on the recent report of the Inter-Departmental Committee (Cmd. 4689).

Mr. PETHERICK: If the reports from the Dominions are favourable, will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up a Royal Commission, with the consent of the Dominions, on which they are represented?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the replies were favourable, we should have to consider what would be the most practicable course to take.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POULTRY REORGANISATION COMMITTEE.

Colonel ROPNER: 46.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state the Government's intention with regard to the report of the Poultry Reorganisation Committee?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE, (Mr. Elliot): The report referred to has recently been given detailed consideration by a joint committee of the National Farmers' Union and the National Poultry Council, the two principal national organisations of producers. It is understood that these two bodies desire to await the recommendations of the Great Britain Egg and Poultry Reorganisation Commission, which is expected to report in the autumn. The Government considers that the matter is one in the first instance for the producers concerned.

MILK SUPPLY.

Colonel ROPNER: 47.
asked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent his statistics show that despite the milk surplus the number of milch cows is increasing?

Average Wholesale Prices (per cwt.) of butter during July, 1929, and July, 1935.


Description.
July, 1929.
July, 1935.


1st quality.
2nd quality.
1st quality.
2nd quality.





s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


British Dairy
…
…
191
6
170
6
116
6
98
0


Argentine†
…
…
165
0
159
0
86
0*
82
0*


Australian (salted)
…
…
171
6
165
6
91
0
87
6


New Zealand (salted)
…
…
175
6
171
6
94
0
91
0


Danish
…
…
179
6
175
0
104
6
102
0


* One week only.
† At London only.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

EXPORT QUOTAS.

Colonel ROPNER: 50.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, for the last 12 months for which statistics are available, there has been full use of the export trade quotas in coal?

Mr. ELLIOT: Between June, 1931, and June, 1934, there was an increase of 247,000 in the dairy herds of Great Britain. Information based on the return for 4th June, 1935, will not be available until next week.

LAND SETTLEMENT.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: 48.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when and by whom the recently announced programme was decided that the Land Settlement Association should create over 3,000 holdings in the next four years and end up with a total of 50,000 family holdings; whether this is the considered objective of the Government; and within what period of years this programme is to be accomplished?

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not think the Land Settlement Association have adopted the programme of development which is to follow on the completion of the experimental work on which they are now engaged. The second and third parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.

BUTTER PRICES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 49.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the present price of Argentine, Australian, New Zealand, Danish, and British butter, and comparable prices for 1929?

Mr. ELLIOT: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information desired.

Following is the statement:

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): Separate allocations and quotas for export supply have only been operative since 1st January, 1935. During the March quarter, the only period for which I have complete statistics, the disposals for the whole country for export
supply were 979,926 tons or 7.65 per cent. less than the corresponding allocations made by the Central Council.

EXPORTS.

Mr. G. HALL: 54.
asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal exported from South Wales to each of the Euro-

To
Quantity of Coal exported from the Bristol Channel Ports during


1931.
1932.
1933.
1934.
January-June, 1935






Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


Latvia
…
…
…
—
—
—
1,000
—


Lithuania
…
…
—
—
2,865
8,092
—


Estonia
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—


Finland
…
…
…
5,955
4,123
54,032
32,104
—


Denmark
…
…
…
37,062
37,501
49,989
40,724
21,867


Norway
…
…
…
56,929
46,043
49,897
64,348
33,063


Sweden
…
…
…
101,158
69,806
76,006
78,018
29,326


Iceland
…
…
…
—
2,394
—
3,807
2,995


France
…
…
…
5,567,827
5,285,541
5,138,031
4,763,414
2,192,354


Germany
…
…
…
44,201
32,823
34,612
35,967
35,630

CLOSED MINES, SOUTH WALES.

Sir W. JENKINS: 55.
asked the Secretary for Mines what number of collieries were closed in the anthracite area of the South Wales coalfield in 1933, 1934, and up to date, and the number of men that have been thrown out of employment as a consequence?

Captain CROOKSHANK: During 1933, eight anthracite pits in South Wales employing 447 men, were closed and have not since re-opened. The corresponding figures for 1934 were six pits employing 616 men. Since 1st January, 1935, nine pits employing 1,878 men have been closed and not ye re-opened, but some of them may well re-open before the end of the year.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.

Mr. G. GRIFFFITHS: 57.
asked the Minister of Health how many persons have lost their pension rights on account of unemployment since the passage of the 1932 Act?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The information asked for is not available, but the number of persons who have lost their pension rights

countries with which we have trade agreements for each of the last four years and the first six months of 1935?

Captain CROOKSHANK: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The information is as follows:

on account of unemployment since the passage of the Act of 1932 must be inconsiderable, for that Act preserved until the end of this year the pension rights of all unemployed persons who had been continuously insured for at least 208 weeks and had paid 160 contributions. The hon. Member will be aware that the position after the end of this year is provided for by the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Bill which has now reached its final stage.

Mr. TINKER: Do I understand from the answer that no persons Rill lose their pension rights because of the suspension of what was called the prolongation caused by the Government when they suspended the Act? Does it mean that all will now be continued because of the introduction of the second Part?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Yes, as regards the future they are subject to the terms of the Bill. Provided that they can show 10 years' insurance, as the great bulk of them can, they are kept in pension rights until 65.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that a certain number have lost their pensions entirely?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: There are a number of young men who do not qualify,
and who may, in fact, have left the field of insurance voluntarily.

Mr. THORNE: 58.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to give a decision in the case of Mrs. A. E. Wickens, of 161, Charlemont Road, East Ham, which was adjourned at the Stratford court for a decision to be made as to her late husband's position under the National Health and Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to give a decision in this case. As explained in reply to the hon. Member's previous question on 11th July, the circumstances of the case make it quite unavoidable that some time must elapse before the legal process of a formal determination under Section 89 of the Insurance Act can be completed.

Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman state how long he thinks it will be before he will be able to give a decision? This question has been under consideration for more than two months. What is the difficulty in the way?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: There is no difficulty, but certain procedure has to be followed. We have received the evidence from the solicitors, and, according to the machinery, we must now consult the employers, and 14 days are allowed for that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND PERSONS (WEST RIDING).

Mr. T. SMITH: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to lack of employment in the West Riding of Yorkshire, a number of blind persons have been transferred to the Hull institute for the blind; that if any of these persons marry they are immediately dismissed and, at the same time, disowned by the West Riding County Council; and whether he will approach the local authorities of the West Riding and Hull as to the desirability of removing this ban upon marriage, which applies only to those transferred to Hull and not to local residents?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is aware that a number of blind persons from the West Riding are employed at the Hull and East Riding Institute, but, according to his information,
their employment is not affected by marriage. If, however, the hon. Member will give particulars of the cases he has in mind, my right hon. Friend will make further inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (PHYSICALLY UNFIT CHILDREN).

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Education the approximate respective number of children who are at present receiving no education because of blindness, lameness and other physical disability?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): According to the returns furnished by local education authorities, there were on 31st December, 1934, 332 blind or partially blind children in England and Wales under the age of 16, not attending any school or institution. The corresponding figure for deaf or partially deaf children was 228, and for children suffering from crippling defects or heart disease 3,560. These figures, however, require a good deal of qualification, as they include some children under the age of compulsory school attendance, some who are receiving treatment prior to admission to special schools, some whose parents are unwilling for them to be sent to residential schools, and some whose defects are so severe that their education in special schools is impracticable.

Mr. FOOT: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if the figures quoted to the end of 1934 are substantially less? Are they getting smaller, or do they remain the same year after year?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am very glad to say that things are very much better than when the hon. Gentleman asked a question in 1930. The corresponding figures then, were: blind children, 557; deaf children, 305; and crippled children, 5,461—a great improvement.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (CONSTITUENCIES DELIMITATION COMMITTEE).

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to make a statement as regards the intentions of
His Majesty's Government concerning the appointment of the Indian Delimitation Committee?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): His Majesty's Government have decided to set up a committee to make recommendations for the delimitation of constituencies in the future Indian Federal and Provincial Legislatures, and on certain connected questions. The committee will be composed as follows:

Chairman:

Sir E. L. L. Hammond, K.C.S.I., C.B.E., formerly Governor of Assam.

Members:

The Hon. Mr. Justice Venkatasubha Rao, of the Madras High Court.

The Hon. Mr. Justice Din Muhammad, of the Lahore High Court.

Secretary:

Mr. J. G. Laithwaite, C.I.E., India Office.

The committee will start its deliberations in India towards the end of September, and is expected to report at the beginning of next year. Copies of the terms of reference are being placed in the Library. Advantage will be taken of Sir Laurie Hammond's presence in India to invite him to pay a special visit to Burma, to consider the proposals of the Government of Burma for the delimitation of constituencies in that country and of certain connected matters that arise there also.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SENTENCE FOR PERJURY.

Mr. McGOVERN: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to order the release of Mrs. Kelly, the expectant mother who was recently sentenced to six months' imprisonment for alleged perjury in the Garngad trial in Glasgow?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I have already made a full statement on this case on 4th July, and I am not prepared, in the meantime, to alter my decision regarding it. I may assure the hon. Member that Mrs. Kelly is in good health and having special attention, and that she will be removed to a hospital outside the prison for her confinement.

Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the fact that this woman was one of eight, that her husband has already been sentenced on the same charge, and that she has been in prison five or six weeks, could not the right hon. Gentleman hold that justice has been satisfied in her special case, and as an act of clemency order her release?

Sir G. COLLINS: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all these matters have been taken into consideration. I made a full statement on the subject on 4th July, and I am afraid that I am unable to go beyond it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman states, in answer to the question, that it is intended to allow this woman out to have a child, and does he intend, after the woman has given birth to the child, to re-arrest her and have her brought back to prison?

Sir G. COLLINS: That is a matter which will arise at a later stage. I have already stated that I am not prepared, in the meantime, to alter my decision in regard to it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not against all the principles of justice that once a woman is released for this purpose, she should be brought back to prison, and cannot he at least make a definite statement that it is not the intention of the Government to bring her back to prison?

Sir G. COLLINS: Naturally I will consider the matter very sympathetically when the case arises.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice, on behalf of my hon. Friend and myself, that this matter will certainly be raised before the House adjourns.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE (GREENOCK).

Mr. McGOVERN: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total amount of expenses incurred in the recent inquiry into the alleged overpayments by the Greenock Public Assistance Committee; and the names of the particular individuals to whom the suns are due and the amounts in each case?

Sir G. COLLINS: As the answer involves a number of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The expenses were as follow:



£
s.
d.


Travelling expenses and fees of the Sheriff of Argyll (Mr. J. R. Dickson, K.C.)
72
12
0


Expenses of Assessors—





Mr. J. Mason Allan
9
10
10


Dr. T. Ferguson
9
8
0


Expenses of Clerk—Mr. J. S. Baillie
9
7
11


Shorthand Writing—Messrs. W. Hodgo and Company
115
13
8


Advertisement in "Greenock Telegraph"—Messrs. Robertson and Scott
1
0
0


Fees and expenses of Auditor—Mr. J. B. Wallace, C.A.
142
10
0


Total
£360
2
5

MONEY PAYMENTS (JUSTICES' PROCEDURE).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to take any action to have the provisions of the Money Payments (Justices Procedure) Bill extended to apply to Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: Owing to differences in the law and practice of the two countries, it would not have been practicable to apply to Scotland the provisions of the Bill referred to by the hon. Member. I am considering whether similar legislation should be introduced for Scotland.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I know that part of the provisions are in effective operation in Scotland, but could not the right hon. Gentleman, under the part of the Bill dealing with prisoners, issue a circular to procurators-fiscal and others that in the meantime they should, as far as possible, carry out the spirit of the Bill introduced for England?

Sir G. COLLINS: Until the law is altered I cannot make that recommendation, but I am making inquiries on the subject forthwith.

CRIMINAL LUNATIC.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has made inquiry into the case of a lad named Grid, who has been detained in Perth Criminal Asylum for some considerable time; and whether he proposes to allow him to go home to his parents?

Sir G. COLLINS: Medical reports which I have obtained as to the condition of the man referred to, whose name is
Ejgird, show that he is unfit for liberation to his home at the present time. His transfer to an ordinary mental asylum, if possible in the vicinity of Glasgow, is receiving consideration and, when the necessary arrangements have been made, I will inform the hon. Member.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE, GLASGOW.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 66.
asked the Secretary of Skate for Scotland whether he will explain the difference between the sum of £423,164 which the corporation of Glasgow assert they will have to contribute under Section 45 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, and the sum of £189,668, which is the figure issued by the Scottish Office?

Sir G. COLLINS: As the reply is somewhat long and involves a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will my right hon. Friend see that adequate publicity is given to this answer so as to dispel the misapprehensions that are held in Scotland on this subject?

Sir G. COLLINS: I shall take every possible step to see that the statement that I have made is amply reported in Scotland.

Following is the answer:

From the figure of £423,164 there should be deducted £24,000 (that is, 60 per cent. of the Distressed Areas Grant of £40,000) leaving a contribution of approximately £399,000 to be made by the corporation. In order, however, to arrive at the net charge falling on the ratepayers of Glasgow there should be deducted a further sum of £209,332 that being the amount of the block grant appropriate to the expenditure of £1,379,000 transferred from the corporation to the Unemployment Assistance Board which grant the corporation are being allowed to retain notwithstanding the transfer. The net charge to the Glasgow ratepayers as shown in the table published in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 22nd July is, therefore, £399,000 less £209,332 or a total of £189,668. For further details as to the relative proportion of expenditure to be borne by the corporation and by the Exchequer, I would refer to the reply given to the question by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) on 21st May last.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MANCHESTER REGIMENT (LEAVE).

Major PROCTER: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the announcement by his Department that men of the 1st Battalion the Manchester Regiment, which is being transferred from the West Indies to Egypt, will not be granted leave when their transport touches Southampton, and the hardship thus inflicted on men who have been away for 18 months, he will have the whole question reviewed?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The ship could not be detained in order to grant a few days' leave to the men without dislocating the trooping programme and causing expense to the taxpayer. It is hoped that some eight to ten hours will be available between the arrival and the departure of the ship, and arrangements are being made for a reunion of members of the battalion and their relatives and friends at the docks. I must point out that, since it is exceptional for a unit to touch English waters on its journey from one station abroad to another, this battalion may be regarded as fortunate as compared with the majority of units abroad.

Major PROCTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the expense would be for granting leave to these men, who have been abroad for 18 months?

Mr. HACKING: The expense for the detention of the ship alone for four days would be £1,200. But that is not the only factor. It would be impracticable to give these men leave for that short space of time.

Major PROCTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a cost of £1,200 would be well worth while?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

EGG SUPPLIES.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that troops quartered at Bulford camp are supplied with eggs imported from Denmark and Finland; and whether he will take steps to ensure that home-produced eggs only are supplied to the troops in future?

Mr. HACKING: Eggs do not form part of the soldier's ration. The eggs on sale to the troops in the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes at Bulford and elsewhere are home, Empire and foreign, and I cannot prevent the troops and their families from buying foreign eggs if they wish to do so.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will the War Office encourage the Institutes to supply English eggs only, and not supply foreign eggs?

Mr. HACKING: We give every encouragement possible for home eggs to be sold.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no steps are taken to interfere with the liberty of the soldier to buy whatever eggs he cares to buy?

Mr. HACKING: That is true. If the canteen did not stock foreign eggs, the only effect would be that the families would go outside to purchase their supplies of such eggs. We cannot prevent them from purchasing foreign eggs if they so desire.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Cannot the War Office help the farmers by giving the soldiers eggs for breakfast?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

WIRELESS SERVICE (SHETLAND ISLANDS).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 69.
asked the Postmaster-General the position regarding the application by the Zetland County Council for the installation of wireless communication between the islands of Papa Stour and Foula and the mainland of Shetland?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): A letter stating the terms on which a wireless service could be provided was sent to the Zetland County Council on 25th April last; and I understand that the council are now pursuing the question with the other authorities concerned.

TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, THORNTON HEATH.

Mr. DORAN: 70.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will investigate the general complaints regarding the inefficiency of the Thornton Heath telephone exchange, made both by trades-people and private subscribers, and take
the necessary steps to ensure the efficiency of this exchange in future?

Major TRYON: The records show that there have been very few complaints of the working of the Thorton Heath Exchange; and recent investigations show that this exchange compares favourably with London exchanges generally.

Mr. DORAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of these complaints never reach headquarters? May I ask, for my own benefit, as I happen to be a subscriber, whether he will obtain from that exchange a list of their wrong numbers?

Major TRYON: We have difficulties not only with wrong numbers, but sometimes with the subscribers. The hon. Member has suggested that these matters are not inquired into at headquarters. I can assure him that I, personally, inquired into his complaints, and I found that in one case he made a complaint that he could not get through from a distance to his own house, but when the Post Office inquired on the spot, they found the reason that he could not get through to his own house was that there was nobody in it.

Mr. DORAN: May I say that there is always somebody in my house?

RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE (CONCESSIONS).

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. ATTLEE:

71. To ask the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to mark the 300th anniversary of the Post Office as a public service by making any new concessions?

Mr. ATTLEE: In asking this question, may I wish the Postmaster-General many happy returns of the day?

Major TRYON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.
Yes, Sir, I am glad to say that the success of the various measures introduced by my predecessor to popularise the use of the telephone enables me, with the concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make, as from 1st October next, three new concessions affecting the telephone service in rural areas. I will give a summary of them.
First, what is called the "free radius" will be extended from two miles to three miles: that is to say, telephone service will be provided at standard rental rates, without excess mileage charge, for any subscriber within three miles of an ordinary exchange and excess mileage charges at the present rates will only begin beyond the three mile radius. For subscribers in the country beyond two miles from an ordinary exchange, the cost of telephone service will thus be reduced by amounts varying from £1 to £8 a year.
Under the second concession telephone service will be provided when and where technical conditions permit at standard rates for subscribers, who would normally be liable to excess mileage charges, provided that they are in the neighbourhood of a rural kiosk or other public call office, and that not less than four such subscribers are forthcoming. Where there are less than four, they can have telephone service on dividing between them the total rental charges at standard rates for four subscribers.
The third concession is intended to benefit those villages which, having no Post Office, are outside the scope of the arrangements announced in connection with the Jubilee and have been unable to obtain a kiosk or other call office without giving a guarantee. I fear I cannot, in these cases, dispense entirely with some contribution from the local authority; but I have decided to abolish the guarantee system, to which local authorities have frequently objected. In rural areas where local authorities have entered into guarantee agreements for public call offices they will be relieved of their liability; and in future a kiosk will be provided in any rural village or hamlet on the mainland where it cannot be justified by the number of calls, if the local authority concerned is prepared to pay for five years the rental of an ordinary private telephone line, namely, £4 a year.
I am glad to be able to mark the tercentenary of the Post Office as a public service, by announcing these new arrangements which will, I hope, be of lasting benefit to the agricultural community.

Colonel Sir EDWARD RUGGLES-BRISE: In regard to the second and third concessions, which affect only certain agricultural districts, would it be
possible to indicate by means of a map or otherwise those localities that will enjoy the concessions?

Major TRYON: There are maps which have been prepared showing the results of the scheme and the benefits conferred, and showing the position before and after the concession. I will have the two maps put up at once in the Tea Room, if the House wishes.

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the kiosks will be provided, particularly in the north of Scotland?

Major TRYON: Certainly, the north of Scotland will benefit very much, because there are places in the north of Scotland where there is no post office, and where they have not benefited yet from the Jubilee concessions.

STAFF.

Sir E. RUGGLES-BRISE: asked the the Postmaster-General whether any increase in the telephone staff has taken place since the introduction of the lower telephone charges last October?

Major TRYON: The number of staff employed in the Post Office in connection with the telephone service has increased by 4,107 since the new telephone rates were introduced on 1st October, 1934.

Sir E. RUGGLES-BRISE: 74.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the number of Post Office employés on 1st July, 1935, and the corresponding number on 1st July last year, and what increases there have been in the numbers of men and women employed, respectively?

Major TRYON: The total number of persons employed in the Post Office on 1st July of this year was 239,302, compared with 230,801 at the corresponding date last year. These numbers show increases in 12 months of 6,586 men and 1,915 women employed by the Department.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Is not this a rattling good example of what State ownership can do?

NEW GREETINGS TELEGRAMS.

Sir E. RUGGLES-BRISE: 73.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can give any indication of the public response to the new greetings telegrams?

Major TRYON: The initial response has been very satisfactory. No general figures are yet available, but the number of greetings telegrams delivered in the London area alone is about 1,200 a day.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Major PROCTER: 75.
asked the Minister of Pensions why a pension was refused to Mrs. M. E. Bidwell, 28, Crown Street, Accrington, widow of the late 36,536 Private Bidwell, East Lancashire Regiment, whose death was certified by the coroner as due to chronic nephritis due to war service?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The terms of the Royal Pensions Warrants do not allow of the grant of pension to the widow of a man who, as in the case referred to in the question, married after he had been removed from duty for hospital treatment on account of the disease which ultimately caused his death.

Major PROCTER: 76.
asked the Minister of Pensions why a widow's pension was refused to Mrs. A. A. Riding, late of 2, Walton Street, Altham, now residing at 24, Waterloo Street, Clayton-le-Moors, whose late husband was a war pensioner, and whose death was certified by the coroner as due to cerebral haemorrhage accelerated by war service; and whether he will review his decision in view of the coroner's verdict?

Mr. HUDSON: I am having further consideration given to this case, and I will communicate the result to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMES AND SHAKSPEARE, LIMITED.

Mr. BURNETT: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the report of the official receiver on the Williams and Henry prospectus, he will introduce legislation to amend the Companies Act, 1929, so as to make it an offence to invite public subscriptions to a company which does not disclose all its outstanding commitments in the prospectus inviting subscriptions or to deal in the shares of such a company?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the prospectus of James and Shakspeare, Limited. I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (COMMERCIAL DEBTS).

Mr. MANDER: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that Italy has failed to the extent of £500,000 to pay commercial debts due under the recent new Italian Agreement, he will state what steps he is taking to enable this sum to be liquidated?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am aware that a substantial sum is awaiting transfer to this country in respect of debts falling under the agreement: particulars are published weekly in the Board of Trade Journal. The rate of transfer of these debts depends to a large extent on the rate at which sterling due to Italy is paid by United Kingdom importers into the sterling account at the Bank of England, and every effort is being made to ensure that they make payment in this manner. I would take this opportunity of again urging them to do so, in order that the existing voluntary arrangements may be preserved. The operation of the agreement is being closely and constantly watched.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. LOGAN: 81.
asked the Home Secretary whether gas masks of varying prices are being considered; and how many sizes are contemplated?

Sir J. SIMON: It is contemplated that respirators should be made in a sufficient range of sizes to suit varying requirements, including those of children, and that there should be patterns at different prices according to the length of time for which protection would be needed.

Mr. LOGAN: Does that imply that masks of different kinds will be necessary for different kinds of gases?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that will be necessary, but if the hon. Member wishes to pursue that, perhaps he will put a question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).

Mr. DENMAN: 82.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to make any further statement on the question of restriction of the hours of employment of young persons in unregulated occupations?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. I have been considering, in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, what will be the best line of advance in this matter. The conclusion I have reached is that the most satisfactory and expeditious way will be to set up a small Departmental Committee who will examine the position in relation to those occupations in which the need for regulation of the hours of juvenile employés has been reported to be urgent, and will advise in detail as to the further legislation which should be undertaken.

Mr. DENMAN: While thanking my right hon. Friend for this valuable step forward, will he also include the excessive hours of work under tthe Factories and Workshops Acts?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think there would be any advantage in including in the work of this Departmental Committee an inquiry into that, because the Home Office is already very well informed through the reports of its factory inspectors as to that matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement as to the course of business to-day, and whether he intends to move the Motion suspending the 11 o'clock Rule?

The PRIME MINISTER: We wish to obtain the first two Orders on the Order Paper—the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, the Lords Amendments to the National Health Insurance Bill—and the Motion relating to Unemployment Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Order. The Debate on agriculture will take place on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, and I understand on inquiry that the Lords Amendments to the National Health Insurance Bill are all of a drafting nature. So far as the Unemployment Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Order is
concerned, this could not be entered upon except at a late hour last night, and my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary made an arrangement to postpone it until to-day. I think there is a general agreement to bring the discussion on the Appropriation Bill to an end not later than 9 o'clock, and then take the Lords Amendments to the National Health Insurance Bill, which should not occupy any appreciable time, and after that to take the Unemployment Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Order. In view of this arrangement, it is unnecessary for me to move the suspension of the 11 o'clock rule.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he thinks there is any possibility of the Employment of Women and Young Persons Bill being passed during the present Session?

Sir J. SIMON: The Bill is being merely introduced to-day. It will be a matter for consideration later.

BILL PRESENTED.

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL,

"to make provision for the employment of women and young persons in factories and workshops on a system of shifts; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid," presented by Sir John Simon; supported by Captain Wallace; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Teachers (Superannuation) Bill.

House of Commons Disqualification (Declaration of Law) Bill.

Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendment to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Watford) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords],

Bridgwater Corporation Bill [Lords],

Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

HOUSING BILL.

That they have agreed to the Commons Amendments to certain of the Lords Amendments and to the Commons consequential Amendment to the Housing Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

AGRICULTURE.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: There is no need to apologise for raising the question of agriculture again. It is true that during the past four years it has been discussed ad nauseam, but in view of the size of the industry and its importance in our political economy I think we should review what has been done so that we may better judge the result of the various efforts which have been made by the Government during the past four years. In reply to a question the Minister of Agriculture informed me that during the last four years there have been 18 committees set up to consider various phases of agriculture and 52 reports have been provided. We may learn to-day some of the recommendations which have been made by the Marketing Supply Committee and by any one of the numerous committees which have been set up. I should imagine that during the last four years every known experiment has been tried. We have had quotas, restrictions, quantitative regulations, direct and indirect subsidies, and levies. We realise that there is no single specific for dealing with agriculture, and, therefore, trial and error by any Minister of Agriculture would be the method to be employed. We have had numerous marketing schemes set up as well as quantitative regulations, and while all these efforts have met with varying results the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman have indicated that if one scheme fails they are ready to try another.
The Prime Minister made a speech a few days ago to an audience of 10,000, in which he confessed that after generations of neglect agriculture was at last getting a show. The right hon. Gentleman was not paying a great compliment to Conservative Governments in the past when he talked about "generations of neglect" and I think in view of that statement it would
be fair if those who sit on these benches were to charge past Governments with neglect and with responsibility for the lamentable condition into which agriculture has been allowed to pass. But the Prime Minister during that speech was not averse from a little self-adulation. He told his listeners that as one policy had failed they had tried another and that they had achieved miraculous results, by one phase or another of the Government's policy. In July last year the Minister of Agriculture declared to the House that the solutions of our agricultural difficulties defy logic. If one examines what has taken place during the last four years, one is bound to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. For the purposes of this Debate I propose to take a bird's-eye view of the various schemes which have been completed within that period, so that the right hon. Gentleman in reply may tell us what have been the net gains of the Government's policy or policies on this subject, in terms of efficiency, increased output, increased employment and improved conditions for the 700,000 men and women employed in the agricultural industry.
First, we had the Wheat Act, which provided for an indirect subsidy of about £6,000,000 per annum. With that sum, a good many things could be done. I do not think it would be difficult, for us, if £6,000,000 per annum were available, to find work for 50,000 or 60,000 mineworkers by subsidising export coal. I do not, however, wish to go into that question. The fact is that the Wheat Act provided for an annual contribution from the consumer of £6,000,000 to the growing of wheat in this country, and, so far, we have not heard from the right hon. Gentleman exactly what the results have been. I ask him, first, has this subsidy encouraged mechanisation in the wheat-growing areas? Secondly, if that is the case, to what extent does mechanisation cheapen production? Thirdly, if mechanisation has cheapened production, has the right hon. Gentleman considered it worth while to re-examine the question of whether or not 45s. a quarter is a fair price between producer and consumer? So far as my recollection serves me, no statement has been made in this House since the passing of the Act on that phase of the subject. We know that at the School of Agricultural Economics at Cambridge certain figures have been
produced, to prove that wheat, with efficient management, can be produced at much less cost than the guarantee given through the Wheat Act of 1932. Fourthly, we want to know from the right hon. Gentleman what has been the effect of the Act on unemployment in the agricultural industry? When we provide £6,000,000 a year we are entitled to know how the money is being spent and with what results. What are the net gains, if any, to those employed in the industry and to the economy of the country as a whole?
The question of sugar has been discussed almost ad nauseam, and I do not want to go into it at any length to-day. We know that some £50,000,000 has been advanced directly and indirectly to this industry and many hon. Members regard it as a very bad speculation. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to issue a White Paper explaining, at long last, the Government's long-term policy, we can perhaps safely leave that matter for some future occasion when it will be possible to return to the subject. Some more extensive reply than we have yet had to the observations made from these benches and from the benches below the Gangway, on the subject of sugar, is called for, particularly with regard to the questions of efficiency and employment, and the remarks of the Commission which examined the question a short time ago. However, I prefer to leave the subject of sugar to a later date when, perhaps, a more comprehensive discussion can take place than would be possible to-day.
Apart from questions of fruit and vegetables, to which reference may be made later, the next thing of material consequence to be mentioned in this connection is the right hon. Gentleman's power of wielding the axe with regard to bacon. In the case of bacon, there is no question of a levy or a direct subsidy, but a policy of quantitative restriction has been applied. We know, to some extent, what the effect has been on the consumer. We know what the effect has been upon consumption. We know how generous the policy of the right hon. Gentleman has been towards foreign sellers. In 1932 we imported 11,390,000 cwts. of bacon for which we paid £30,189,000. As a result of the right
hon. Gentleman's policy of restriction, in 1934 we imported 7,590,000 cwts., for which we paid £30,052,000. In other words, we paid almost the same sum for 7,500,000 cwts. as we had previously paid for 11,390,000 cwts. Briefly, what the right hon. Gentleman has done has been to lop off one out of every three rashers available for consumption in this country and the effect upon the lower orders has been very distinctly felt in all parts of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lower orders?"] That is perhaps, one of those unfortunate and momentary lapses into an inferiority complex which are liable to occur when one is referring to that unfortunate section of the community who can only afford to buy the minimum quantity of any class of goods because of the miserably low wages which they receive. Here is a quotation from a responsible officer in a Scottish wholesale bacon establishment dealing with the rise in prices caused by the Bacon Import quota:
The worse feature of the advance in price which has occurred however, is that the cheaper cuts such as streaks and fores have practically doubled in value, with the result that this type of cut, which was so exceptable to the Scottish trade and, particularly in areas where the purchasing power is at a low ebb, has gone out of the reach of the poorer consumer who has therefore ceased to be a buyer of bacon at all.
We know that those words describe the situation all over the country and we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what has been the quid pro quo in this case. We have sacrificed 3,500,000 cwts. of bacon, free of charge. What has been the gain to this country? How much more employment has been found in the production of pigs and bacon? What has been the effect on efficiency? We are entitled to know these things. Unless there has been a net gain in efficiency and in employment, it is doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman's policy can be termed even a minor success. Personally, I think it has been a hopeless failure from the first, and the more recent statement made by the Prime Minister at the big meeting to which I have referred, and by the right hon. Gentleman in this House, is that at long last they have decided that their policy of quantitative restriction has been faulty. It has failed to deliver the goods; it has not been nearly as efficient as they anticipated, and now
they are waiting an opportunity to apply another policy, that of a levy upon imports, so that they may subsidise bacon producers in this country.
With regard to the efficiency of those producing bacon, I am half inclined to think that the Minister and his Department and the Market Supply Committee and all the multiplicity of Committees that are sitting, are paying little or no attention to the efficiency of producers of any one of these commodities that are subsidised directly or indirectly. Here is a note in a letter written by M. A. W. Menzies-Kitchin, of the School of Agriculture at Cambridge, referring to the methods employed here by bacon producers and the methods employed in Denmark. The writer concludes his letter:
To sum up, it would appear that as a result of pig recording and pig testing and by the introduction of suitable equipment and by the use of efficiently balanced rations, the Danish farmer has reduced the cost of producing bacon pigs to at least one-quarter below the average cost on British farms.
This correspondent of the Cambridge School of Agriculture does not talk without his book. He knows the subject from top to bottom, and if it is true that the simple word "efficiency" means a difference of one-quarter in the cost of production, I want to ask the Government whether they think that millions of people should be penalised while such inefficiency or lack of efficiency exists among producers in this country, or, to put it in another way, I ask what steps the right hon. Gentleman and his Department are taking, either through the agency of the Market Supply Committee, which apparently from time to time supplies him with information as to the potential requirements of the country and determines the import quota and the output in this country—what steps are being taken through that Committee to ascertain the improvements, if any, in the efficiency of producers in this country. Here is another letter to the "Times" of 22nd July, from a Mr. D. V. Norman, also from Cambridge:
During the year March, 1934, to March, 1935, when I had 23 sows, I weaned 305 pigs from 42 litters. Unfortunately losses after weaning were heavy, and of these only 277 pigs were marketed. One sow died in March, 1934, without farrowing during the year, so from 22 sows an average of only 12.6 pigs per sow were sold. During the year receipts from pig sales, together
with an increase in valuation of £8, amounted to £1,120. On the expenditure side meal represented £730, labour £85, rent £20, sundry expenses £11, while manure was exchanged for litter with a neighbouring farmer. Therefore a gross profit of £274 was attained on 22 sows, or an average of £12 per sow.
The implication is current throughout that letter that if British producers were all utilising such knowledge as is available at Cambridge and elsewhere, we could compete favourably with the Danish importer, we could avoid restricting, and avoid denying millions of people of the pleasure of consuming any portion of bacon at all. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, first of all, what effect this sacrifice on the part of the consumer has had on the bacon industry. We know that from the point of view of marketing the bacon the Pig Marketing Board are doing their best to market the commodity efficiently, but we are entitled to know that producers are producing efficiently and that they are doing their best to more than justify all that the Minister has done on their behalf.
The question of mutton and lamb has been dealt with, as the Prime Minister boasted at his recent meeting, on the lines of quantitative restriction. All these restrictions have been of a voluntary nature. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture has power to impose restrictions upon imports of mutton and lamb. At any rate, if he has the power I am not aware of its origin. I am more particularly interested in a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman last Friday week in the discussion of the Cattle Bill. He made reference to such arrangements as have been made with the Dominions and foreign countries for imports during the next 12 months. He made a curious statement. He said that as a result of voluntary restrictions we had been able to increase the price of mutton from 7¼d. to 10¼d. a pound without materially affecting the retail price. That is a wonderful achievement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. We are prepared to compliment him upon that partial success. But we want to know more from the right hon. Gentleman. If in 12 months' time or 18 months' or two years' time the wholesalers can afford to pay 3d. a pound more for mutton or lamb without passing on to the retailer or the consumer one single farthing per pound, we want to know what they have been raking off before the restrictions
began. Who has been robbing the producer abroad and the producer at home?
We are entitled to know the result of the investigation that the right hon. Gentleman has set on foot. It is almost unbelievable that wholesalers can be persuaded to pay 3d. a pound more for all that they buy without getting some compensating factor. We ask, how has this miracle happened? Who is making the sacrifice now? If the right hon. Gentleman can discover who is making the sacrifice at the moment he will probably find who has been exploiting the producer here and abroad in the past. There is a call for eternal vigilance on all these schemes. We should insist upon more rather than less organisation. I know that it is possible to over-organise in certain ways, but as far as agriculture is concerned we are a long way from having reached that stage yet. The Central Landowners' Association sent a statement of their views to the "Times" on Monday, 22nd July, in this form:
The view is held that there is every reason to be suspicious of the theory that the creation of national boards with large monopolies would necessarily result in reduction of the distributors' margin and lower prices to the consumer. The Central Landowners' Association also recommends that the working of the Marketing Board should be closely examined to ascertain whether the distributors' margin is not excessive; on what principle the accompanying restriction of imports is being worked; and whether the measures taken to enforce that principle are adequate.
If the Central Landowners' Association demands those safeguards for the consumer, that is an addition to our efforts, and the Labour party has an unexpected ally. We are entitled to ask the Minister, therefore, whether he will re-examine the mutton and lamb situation and discover the previous leakage, for if he finds that leakage he may find the leakage in beef without further restrictions or direct subsidies, and he may solve the beef problem as apparently he has solved the mutton and lamb problem.
The question of beef has been dealt with during the past 12 months by direct subsidy, and it is to be dealt with during the next 13 months by direct subsidy. That is in the absence of the application of the long-term policy of a levy. No hon. Member will deny that the beef branch of the industry has been in a parlous plight. Hon. Members opposite
have all been extremely generous to the Minister. Some hon. Members representing industrial areas may have been very doubtful about the wisdom first of a direct and then of an indirect subsidy, but they have always been generous to a degree when conceding what the Minister has asked for. We have had no marketing scheme for beef, no system of central auctions, and no slaughter-house system worthy of the name, and it really is high time that something was done on those lines if the taxpayer or the consumer is to be persistently called upon to assist the industry to its feet.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was very anxious last year to know what the Egg and Poultry Reorganisation Commission was doing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) was not then in this House, and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, taking advantage of my right hon. Friend's absence, made a very unkindly observation. He suggested that a person who goes to the Zoo frequently acquires sooner or later the habits of the particular animal at which he looks, and he said that my right hon. Friend, who was Chairman of the Poultry and Egg Reorganisation Commission, had acquired the habits of the hen and had become almost a broody hen, and he added that there was a certain remedy for a broody hen. He concluded by saying, "I want to get a report at the earliest possible moment." He was dying to get hold of this report, so that some organisation could be imported into the marketing of eggs and all the rest of it. The Commission have reported many months since. The latest information comes from the Minister in his reply to a question to-day—they are still considering it.
Will the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton tell us who is the broody hen now, and will he say how one is to characterise the beef producers who have been directly subsidised for 13 months? What animal do they represent? There has been a scheme there, prepared many months since, but nothing has happened. When the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton makes a speech here and refers to some recent report which is not available to us, he is simply trying to cover up the tracks of the reports that have been made available. We are entitled
to ask the Minister, when is the marketing scheme for beef, lamb and mutton to be made available? According to the Prime Minister he and the Government are satisfied that they have restored mutton and lamb to an economic position. They are not worried about marketing; they are not worried about efficiency; they are not worried about anything at all, so long as the price is just sufficient to satisfy the producer.
So much for mutton, lamb and beef. The same thing can be said with regard to poultry and eggs. We know that the increase in the output of poultry has been tremendous during the last 10 years or so, but that, as with so many other agricultural commodities, production is all right only up to a point. All that is asked for with eggs and poultry is more restriction and less organisation, despite the fact that the broody hen Commission has reported.

Mr. TURTON: Not that broody hen, but a successor.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member was referring to a broody hen in July, 1934, and he has been discreetly silent about it since. I should like him to tell us to-day what he and his friends have done with the report they were bursting for 12 months ago. The question of milk has been dealt with by direct subsidies, plus quantitative restriction, plus duties on certain dairy produce, and so forth. The marketing scheme, which has only been a very partial success, did at least save the dairy industry of this country from disaster, but they took possession of the industry at a moment when they could do little more than stave off disaster. My sympathies, therefore, are to a large extent with the Board, which has been trying to do the impossible with a constantly increasing surplus for which there have been no buyers at the price at which liquid milk is sold in all parts of the country today. The scheme itself, apart from having staved off disaster, has cost the taxpayers £5,500,000. It has not been a lot of use to a lot of producers, and it certainly has not been beneficial to consumers, except those school children who have had subsidised milk in elementary schools, and I do not think there is an hon. Member here who could not bring forward case after case, particularly those of producer-retailers, who are securing less for their
milk to-day than they did prior to the commencement of the Marketing Board's operations.
I am willing to wait a reasonable time to give the Marketing Board a chance to reorganise themselves and to make the best they can of present conditions, but those of us who sit on these Benches think that no marketing scheme that has power only to deal with production and with bargaining for a price can ever fully succeed. The Milk Marketing Board has no power to enter into the distributive side of the industry at all, and in so far as it has interfered with distribution it has committed errors for which it has been condemned by its own members. We think, however, that if the producer and the consumer are to get the benefit to which both of them are entitled, the producer by way of a better all-round price, and the consumer by way of cheaper milk and improved methods of distribution, the scheme will always be in the state in which it is at the moment, namely, one of glorious uncertainty. I had a letter from a milk producer this morning, who says he has cows, that he has to sell milk to six neighbours every day, and that he carts some 40 gallons of milk about 20 or 30 miles, where it is sold at less than 4½d. a gallon for manufacturing purposes. He must charge a fixed price for the liquid milk to the consumer, and he only gets the available manufacturing price for any milk taken for manufacturing purposes.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member's very interesting and well-informed speech, but I think he must be in error in suggesting that anyone does not get the pool price for his milk. Under the scheme the low price for manufacturing milk is now a thing of the past.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I know that that farmer, who conveys his milk 25 miles and sells it for manufacturing purposes, receives the pool price for what he sells, but the recipient of the milk, the manufacturer, only pays into the pool round about 4½d. per gallon. I do not think that that will be denied. I know the farmer himself secures the average pool price for any milk that goes for manufacturing purposes as well as the price for what he sells to his next door neighbours, but that is the anomaly of which many complain. I do not say that the
solution is simple, and to the most bitter political opponent that I have in my own Parliamentary Division who was in doubt as to what he should do with the Milk Board, whether he should vote it out of existence or vote to keep it in existence, my advice would certainly be to vote to keep it in existence, not in its present form, but in a much improved form, for I am convinced that unless some power is given to the Board to deal with distribution more effectively, it never will be able to get that successful scheme that we are entitled to expect.
So far as the elementary school system of cheap milk is concerned, I think it has been greeted universally as an unqualified success. We know, of course, that the increase in dairy cows continues, and the surplus milk is the perpetual problem of the Board. May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might, in association with the Board, extend the provision of that cheap milk to similar families to those of the elementary schools for children who are not yet of school age? Milk is of greater value perhaps to young children than it is to children from five to 14. Then there are expectant mothers who cannot afford to buy milk at the ordinary price and whose children are having subsidised milk at school. We want the right hon. Gentleman to examine whether what he now claims to be an unqualified success cannot be extended so as further to dispose of surplus milk and further to prove the usefulness of milk as a means of building up the child's physique, and incidentally to help the dairy farmer in this country.
We are entitled to ask for that, for after all, the right hon. Gentleman, or his predecessor, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or a combination of them, has already imposed a duty of 15s. per cwt. on imported butter from foreign countries, a 15 per cent. duty on imported cheese, and all sorts of duties on dried milk and various milk products. If the consumer in this country expresses his willingness to pay these duties, it is not too much to ask that the right hon. Gentleman shall utilise such funds as may be made available through such duties to subsidise free or cheap milk for those youngsters and those mothers who cannot afford to buy it. I think there may be an outlet in that
direction for a great deal of surplus milk, and I may say that it would meet with approval from a large number of people outside this House.
The question of potatoes has been dealt with in two ways. There are duties at various periods during the year, varying from £2 10s. to £4 a ton, on imported potatoes. The right hon. Gentleman claims the power, and exercises it, to apply quantitative restriction on imports. He has already said that ordinarily we produce in this country 97 per cent. of the potatoes we consume. The margin of 3 per cent., therefore, is so small that it cannot have any material effect on the price of potatoes in this country. It is the marketing scheme and the producers themselves who must provide themselves with continuity of prices, and it is the Minister or some other agency acting on his behalf who should be the real safeguard for the consumer. We should prefer that there should be a price-fixing body acting on behalf of the consumers in this country. Agricultural Members in this House are not satisfied with the £2 10s to £4 a ton duty and quantitative restriction powers in the hands of the Minister—I have heard them demanding that he should apply restrictions more and more—but that is not going to help the industry unless the industry tries to help itself in these various directions.
The question of oats, largely affecting Scotland, has been dealt with by a direct duty of 60 per cent., a very formidable duty. Duties on vegetables and fruit are various, ranging from 2d. to 1s. a lb. or a peck, and so on. I think we have now travelled all round the farm, from the milk pail to the orchard, and back. What we have witnessed over the four years' period has been this: The wheat subsidy was indirect, the sugar subsidy was direct and indirect, mutton and lamb were dealt with by quantitative restriction, beef by direct subsidy and restriction, milk by subsidies, duties, and restrictions, bacon by quantitative restriction, potatoes by duties and quantitative restriction, oats by a 60 per cent. duty, hops by a £4 a ton duty, and fruit and vegetables by duties of various kinds. That is a very comprehensive list, and I am not at all sure whether, having sat here so many times and listened to Conservative Members throwing bouquets to the Minister, I
ought not to take the lead to-day, for if ever a Minister served a body of people who are in business as much for their own profit as they are for service to the community, the right hon. Gentleman has been that Minister. I think I can compliment him at all events on having worked a little overtime in producing the schemes that have been brought before this House.
What has been the result of all this activity? First of all, I want to ask a question, and I will supply the answer. What effect have all these schemes, subsidies, duties, and restrictions had on employment? There are just 56,000 fewer agricultural labourers to-day than there were in 1930, so that if we study all these schemes from the standpoint of employment, the Government have been a colossal failure. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual facile method of conducting a debate, will tell us, "It is true that there are 56,000 fewer people working on the land than there were before, but if I had not been here, that reduction would have been even greater." Might I say in advance that I rather suspect that it would not have been difficult for my colleagues, above or below the Gangway, and myself, if we had had £20,000,000, £30,000,000, or £40,000,000 at our disposal annually, to have found employment for a few people, even if they had been digging holes and filling them up again? In any case, the net result is that there are 56,000 fewer labourers engaged to-day. We are entitled to judge these schemes all round, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as the result of his schemes and subsidies, the industry is more stable than it was four years ago? Is the industry really prosperous? Perhaps some farmers' representatives will tell us when they speak. I have never yet heard farmers' representatives declare that agriculture is really prosperous, and I am waiting for the day. I wish that they would be more honest with themselves, and, instead of wasting words in congratulating the Minister, that they would tell the House frankly whether, as a result of the Minister's efforts, agriculture is now thoroughly stable, that everything is merry and bright, and that they need not worry for the next 25 years.

Mr. HENRY HASLAM: Would the miners say that?

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member will support a proposal to concede a subsidy of £6,000,000 a year for miners—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Did not the miners get a subsidy of £25,000,000?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. and learned Gentleman is in grave error. If he knew anything at all about it he would know that the Government of the time gave £23,000,000 to the mine owners to tide them over a period, and that during that period the wages of mine workers were reduced. If the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) is prepared to support a proposal to concede an annual subsidy of £6,000,000 to the mining industry, or £26,000,000, or £53,000,000, I would compliment the Minister who passed such a Measure, and I would tell him that as long as he continued to grant us that subsidy he would never hear from us again for the next 25 years.

Mr. ELLIOT: Would the hon. Gentleman allow the price of coal to fall from 175 points above pre-war, where it is to-day, to 120, where agricultural prices are?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman always seems to forget when he hurls this price of coal across the Table that we do not own or run the mines. We are in the same position as the agricultural labourers. The miner does as he is told. He has no say in the production, or in the methods employed. He just goes to work to do as he is told, and, having produced the coal, he is not invited into the colliery office in consultation with the commercial side of the industry and asked, "How shall we sell this coal, and to whom shall we sell it?" He is never consulted. He just gets what the owner cares to give him after the owner has determined the methods of production and sale. The agricultural labourer is in that position, and we are not in any way responsible for his condition.

Mr. ELLIOT: Am I correct in saying that it is under an Act passed by the hon. Gentleman's friends that this terrible state of affairs in regard to the mines was established?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Measure introduced by the Labour Government sought to establish marketing schemes without a subsidy, while every scheme that the right hon. Gentleman has produced has sought to give a subsidy without organisation. No subsidy was granted in 1930. All that Parliament did was to pass a Measure which conceded to the owners power to organise the marketing of their commodity, but in every scheme of the right hon. Gentleman there is a subsidy and no guarantee of a marketing scheme. There is a great difference between the two.

Mr. ELLIOT: The difference is that the hon. Gentleman and his friends granted the producers the power to restrict output. If that power is handed over to the agricultural producers, they will not bother the House any more for a subsidy.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman always very delicately misses the only point that matters. I repeat, that power was given to the industry so that, where a percentage of the owners expressed a will, they could enforce a recalcitrant minority into a scheme for marketing their commodity and for fixing output, but simultaneously consumers' committees were established. If a consumer of coal, industrial or domestic, cares to lodge a complaint it can be dealt with, but we have no such thing under the agricultural marketing scheme.

Mr. ELLIOT: Oh!

Mr. WILLIAMS: I know that a committee of investigation is supposed and a consumers' committee are supposed to be in existence, but we never hear anything about them. We have seen the price of bacon soaring sky-high, but nothing has happened as far as we can see. There may have been consultations behind closed doors. In any case, the vital difference is that we are giving subsidies all the time to various branches of agriculture, and we are entitled to insist upon the sort of organisation which is made permissive in regard to the mining industry without any subsidies at all. If you gave to the mining industry a subsidy of £6,000,000, there are a lot of things they could do that they are not doing now.
We are testing the right hon. Gentleman's scheme by the results. The first result is unemployment. What about wages? If all the schemes and the subsidies had expressed themselves in the wages of agricultural workers there would be something to be said for them. The average wage of farm workers between 1925 and 1931 was 31s. 8d.; and for May, 1935, 31s. 7½d. Therefore, the agricultural worker is ½d. a week worse off that he was between 1925 and 1931, and, from the point of view of wages, all these schemes seem to have failed in their effect. I do not deny that in 1931–32–33 wages decreased and that in 1934–35 the decreases were restored, but the net result shows that wages are practically identical with what they were beween 1925 and 1931. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why, after he has provided so much money in so many different ways and has thus helped to restore a certain measure of prosperity to various branches of the industry, that money has not expressed itself in the wages of the workers? The Minister told us in July, 1934, that the increased output per cow in terms of milk was really amazing. The increased output per hen is also amazing, and he said, "What marvels organisation and research can do!" We delight in these marvels, but we want to see their result expressed in the pockets of the agricultural workers.
If it be a question of spending money on behalf of the farmer to see that he gets help in any one of 20 directions, the Government never hesitate to spend any sum of money, but if it be a question of insuring that the workers shall be paid their legitimate statutory wage, the Government have been hesitant in seeing that the law is carried out. In 1929, six new inspectors were appointed. They were sent on various drives through agricultural areas to see that the workers were paid the wages to which they were entitled, and they accomplished very good work. I will quote from the right hon. Gentleman's report. Incidentally, I should like to ask why there has been no report on agricultural wages and proceedings under the Agriculture Wages (Regulation) Act since 1933. The trade union representatives of the workers and hon. Members are entitled to see what has been happening in the meantime. When these inspectors were put on by
the Labour Government, they made investigations in 8,000 cases. They found that 26.6 per cent. of the workers to whom they went were not being paid their statutory wage. They secured £7,770 in arrears of wages for 878 workers. The inspectors paid their way magnificently, for they helped the workers to secure the rates of wages to which they were entitled under the law.
Immediately the present Government came into office they dismissed these six inspectors, with the result that the number of inspections decreased. Whereas in 1932, with these six inspectors making drives, 790 farms were visited, in 1933, after they had been dismissed, only 443 farms were visited. As a result of the lax methods of carrying out the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, it is a good speculation, a good gamble, for a farmer not to pay the correct wage because, if he happens to be caught and is prosecuted, the fine is so small as to be no detriment to him. I will give one or two cases. I do not want to impute that all the farmers are dishonest. They are no more dishonest than the mineowners or any other section of the community, but if they see an opportunity and weakness on the part of the Government, they will, like other sections of the community, take advantage of it. A farmer in Hereford was discovered to have paid £25 short to his workers. He was prosecuted and fined £3 10s. He was running an eight to one risk that if he did not pay the proper wages he would only be made to pay the right wages and, in addition, £3 10s. A farmer near Sheffield withheld £51 from his labourers; he was prosecuted and fined £5. It was a ten to one chance for him. It is a good gamble on the part of the farmer not to pay the right wages. In another case at Widnes a farmer withheld £58 from his labourers. He was caught, and fined £2.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he really thinks that that sort of administration is fair where the labourer is concerned? The Milk Marketing Board, when a farmer in my division had sold a few more gallons of milk to a retailer than, apparently, he was expected to do, fined him £25. He had to sell part of his furniture to meet the fine, but he had to pay. The Milk Marketing Board do not hesitate to inflict fines anywhere
from £10 to £100. In fairness to the agricultural labourer, who, everybody confesses, does not get too much, I ask the Minister to strengthen his inspectors. Give them a chance to do their job, and they will be as effective as possible. That is all I want to say on that point.
I should be out of order if I made any reference to unemployment insurance, but it is a scandal that agricultural workers have been left outside so long, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when considering the industry as a whole, will not forget the workers, and will make such representations to the proper Department as he thinks, in justice, ought to be made on behalf of the workers in that industry. I will not deal with tied cottages and housing legislation. I think the agricultural labourer is as much entitled as any urban citizen to a decent house. He is entitled to the benefits of housing legislation, such as they are, which means the abolition of the tied cottage. The agricultural labourer is a human being in a civilised country, who has been educated and does his work in a scientific manner. He knows right from wrong, and he is entitled to all the benefits of housing legislation down to the point of freeing his house, so that he can enjoy freedom of citizenship like any other member of the community.
From these points of view the worker has little or nothing for which to thank the Government. We admit certain improvements here and there, but even the Government have to confess that the cost has been very heavy, and that the results in many directions are extremely meagre. Two years ago the right hon. Gentleman stated in this House that it would be criminal to put another man back on the land until he had made agriculture pay. He has been making agriculture pay for the last four years. They have had a good opportunity, and the Government have not been fruitless where funds were concerned. After four years, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that now is the time, prosperity being restored to agriculture, to extend smallholdings, co-operative holdings, any sort of holding which will increase the number of workers on the land, or does he still think after four years that the industry is sufficiently unstable not to warrant his going forward with a smallholding policy?
I want to finish as I began. We all recognise that agriculture, being so big—
20 industries involved in one—many of the solutions would defy logic and partial solutions may often be worse than useless. We think some of the partial solutions already applied have been worse than useless, and that some day, sooner or later, the issue of proper organisation and prices will have to be faced by some Minister. The present Government have gone in certain directions, but we are convinced that this is the last Government that will stand up to vested interests. We believe that vested interests must be disregarded, and that there must be safeguards for the consumer as well as for the producer. It is for these reasons that we cannot give full support to the Government policy.

4.50 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: The Debate this afternoon has followed a fairly sealed pattern. We have had a very interesting hour from the hon. Gentleman, who took stock of the situation in an extremely well-informed speech. When he became, as usual and, as I think, quite fairly, a little critical of the Minister opposite, the Minister, as usual, tried to ride off in a coal wagon, which also is part of the sealed pattern on this occasion. The Minister must not mind criticism, because in the course of the Debate to-day he will get many bouquets from those sections of the industry benefiting from quotas and subsidies. I ventured to remind him when he took office how difficult it was for a Minister of Agriculture to maintain his popularity. I remember I quoted what happened in the case of one of his predecessors, whom we knew as Mr. Walter Guinness—how he, after starting off by being quite popular, as, indeed, he well deserved to be, became very unpopular with farmers; so much so, that many of them had a favourite saying, "He that is not with us is a Guinness." Those wonderful people in the Reporters' Gallery who so often make marvellous sense of our sentences, which were not delivered in the sensible form in which they are reported, when reporting that observation made "Guinness" not a proper noun but a combination of a preposition and a pronoun, "agin us "—so that the point of the observation was lost.
Let us remember that in that case—and here comes in the comparison—that Minister of Agriculture, in spite of his unpopularity
with the farmers for several years, went out of office in a blaze of glory and popularity, because the Government suddenly, just before the election, took all the rates off agricultural land. My right hon. Friend is wiser. He keeps up his popularity and that of his Government all the time, by scattering bounties as he goes. I dare say there will be a final sweetener or two thrown in just before the election, to make things really sure. But he has been doing extraordinarily well, in all conscience, lately. A week ago £4,000,000 for livestock for a year; and yesterday he announced something like £6,000,000 for beet sugar, also for a year—£10,000,000 in the course of 10 days, an average of £1,000,000 a day, with no prospect, in either case, as I am sure he would admit in his heart of hearts, of any decrease in either subsidy. That is surely not at all bad. People are getting so accustomed to this that of course appetites are enlarging, and demands are continuing, and if he yields to all the suggestions that will be made to him to-day, he will have to go on keeping up that sort of record of distribution of the taxpayers' money.
What an extraordinary encouragement it will be to all these claims from all the different sections of the agricultural industry and other industries, too, that the action with regard to the beet sugar industry should have been announced. This is an industry which has no reasonable prospect of ever becoming self-supporting, as we learn with full justification from the Greene Report; an industry in regard to which the nation would, as we also know, be saved quite a lot of money if it pensioned off at £2 for the rest of their lives all those who have been employed. That industry is to be kept, as far as we can see, solidly and permanently on the dole at about £6,000,000 a year. How even the humblest of us, interested, it may be, in only the future prospects of cultivating pineapples or bananas, must be encouraged to hope for the best by that decision.
The fact is that a change is coming over the attitude of agriculturists towards the Government, compared with two years ago, when my right hon. Friend took office. Then there were among the harder, closer-thinking farmers many who were genuinely anxious to work out, and to co-operate in improving and developing, better marketing schemes. They
realised that, although they had got what they had always been crying for and that no improvement in marketing conditions was to be required until they had been given something in the shape of a subsidy, restriction or duty, the two things, however uncomfortable it might be, would have to go hand in hand. They were willing to go about as pioneers among their fellows to get the industry better organised for the sake of the producer. Quite definitely that tendency has been fading into the background. It is rather interesting to look at the latest report, which came out yesterday or to-day, about the reorganisation of one of the industries, namely, the report by the Ministry of Agriculture about vegetable marketing. They are hardly allowed to talk at all about marketing boards. The phrase is different. The words used are only that there will have to be national organisation of producers involving almost necessarily the exercise of powers derived under the Agricultural Marketing Act, but the idea of a real marketing board to tackle reorganisation of the industry is rather kept in the background. As one reads agricultural papers and goes about to farmers' meetings, one can see that the feeling is becoming stronger every week, that it is much simpler not to bother about improved methods at all, but just to go strongly forward for more protection and more subsidy. The industry is, in fact, getting almost every month more and more deeply on the dole, and to get it there and keep it there is quite natural, and is getting more and more a popular and a successful cry. Why is that? Partly because protection has always been the Conservative party's substitute for statesmanship, and partly because the marketing sides of these schemes have not been very successful, and have not been going too well.
Take milk. I voted for that scheme when it originally came before the House, because I, and everybody else, knew that the producers had no chance of arranging prices with the distributors when farmers are not able to use their milk on their own farms, or have it sent off some of the farms, because they do not even own the milk churns in which it is carried away. Of course, they have no bargaining power, and, as everybody who had any knowledge of the trade knew, the price given to the producer was always fixed by United Dairies and a few other people
weeks before negotiations began. Now and again they offered a penny a gallon less than they were willing to go to, but the prices were fixed by the distributors entirely, and the producers had no share in it at all. One hoped that that would have been got rid of under this Marketing Board, but if you analyse where the money is going you find that the complaint some of us who were in favour of the scheme pointed out when it began is justifiable, and the big money is still going to the big distributors, and the producer has not been put into an effectively better bargaining position than he was before. Another thing is happening which none of us foresaw, or knew or believed possible, when we voted for the scheme, namely, that in some districts retailers who were quite happy to sell their milk at 5d. a quart are being required to charge 6d. for it, although they know that there is an actual decrease in consumption in their districts. That is an outcome of this milk marketing scheme which will not, in the long run, be popular. That happened a fortnight ago in the district of Cornwall which I represent.
There is the pigs and bacon scheme. I voted for that too, because I knew there was absolute chaos in regard to the type of pig produced by the British farmer, and I thought, and still think and hope, that a better state of affairs might be brought about. I also voted for it because—and this was the thing to which I attached my greatest hope—that the Lane-Fox report, an extraordinarily able document, would be carried into effect. That report made the Development Board, as it was said, the corner-stone of the better organisation of the industry, and recommended that it should be set up even before the Pigs Board and the Bacon Board. That corner-stone was set up only last week, and, indeed, I have not yet seen the names of the board announced. Instead of the industry being planned from the beginning by a body appointed for the purpose, the Development Board, if it is appointed now, will be not the corner-stone but the fifth wheel of the coach, and it will be extraordinarily difficult to bring about that better order in the industry for which some of us had hoped.
Next, wheat. I am not afraid to speak about wheat. The wheat scheme is always dragged in by the Minister as
being the pattern of what he wants his schemes to be in future, and we on these benches are reminded that we voted for it—I should probably have done the same if I had been in the House at the time. But there, again, I am not sure that we ought to be proud of the way in which things are working, I am not sure that all is really creditable. What happens in the local markets? Farmer A sells his wheat to a miller. Without being taken out of the sacks that wheat is sold to Farmer B, but by its passing through the hands of the miller, who gets his very small turn of profit, the farmer who sold it gets his documents which entitles him to the subsidy. The wheat goes to Farmer B, who uses it for poultry corn. Then B sells to the same miller a quantity of wheat which goes to A. It is illegal for A to have sold back to him the same wheat that he has sold, but it is not illegal that there should should be an exchange of wheat for poultry corn, and that the bounty should be paid as a result of that simple transaction. That was a procedure which was hardly foreseen at the time the wheat quota scheme was voted for, and one doubts whether it was the real intention of the promoters of the scheme.
How generally corrupting all these subsidies and tariffs are! I do not suggest personal corruption, of course, but we are all thinking more or less of the next general election, and are bound to realise what will happen then. I can foresee precisely the form in which the National Farmers' Union will ask its questions: "Will you pledge yourself to maintain permanently, and if possible to increase, the particular subsidies or duties which happen to be helping the particular branches of agriculture which are of interest to your constituency?" What chance is there for a man to be returned for an agricultural constituency if he even makes any proviso in answering that question in the form of a reference to safeguarding the National Exchequer, or raises the question of whether the industry still requires the help? The man who gives the full pledge will get the whole support of the farmers, and the man who qualifies it in any way will be opposed.

Mr. COVE: And out will go the Liberals.

Sir F. ACLAND: Very likely. "Out will go the Liberals"—because they happen to be honest. That is the inevitable penalty of honesty, once Protection is part of the policy of the country. That is the point I want to make. If this great, strong Government cannot do the right thing about sugar beet it seems to me that no Government which wanted to give protection can resist the pressure which would be created in many quarters. The arts of log rolling will come in, and in the sacred name of fair play claims will be made that any part of the industry which is not helped in that way shall be helped; and if agriculture has to be helped other industries must be helped; and the last state of the country will, in my humble view, be worse than the first. I do not believe that anybody in this House believes that that course, which now seems inevitably laid out before us, is the real path to recovery and a return of national prosperity.
I believe that we all, in our heart of hearts, realise that two things have been true, are true and always will be true; first, that the prosperity of agriculture depends in the long run not upon these schemes, but upon the prosperity of the customers of agriculture; and, second, that we shall not get that prosperity as long as our national finances are clogged with subsidies, as long as our foreign trade is clogged with tariffs and as long as we have, and from now on will have. Members of Parliament returned clogged with pledges to maintain and increase subsidies. In those conditions we cannot get back to that national position in which alone agriculture can really become permanently prosperous.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I express my appreciation of the action of the Opposition in having devoted this day to the discussion of agriculture? Much as I admired the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), I shall have to say some things in mitigation of his charges; but, all the same, I do very much appreciate the fact that agriculture has been thought of sufficient importance to engage the attention of the House. To my mind the depopulation of the country districts is one of the most serious problems which this country has to face. The figures brought out a fortnight ago
by the hon. Member show how the working population has been vanishing from the land, until to-day we have the alarming position that there are fewer workers on the land in Great Britain than have ever been recorded before. The number is 801,000. Since last year the number has gone down by 27,000. Any man who really values the stability of the country must be alarmed at that state of affairs. Since 1921, 195,000 agricultural workers have left the land, and that is draining not only the vitality of the country districts but the vitality of the country as a whole. Those men must go to the larger centres of population. I should like hon. Members representing mining constituencies to join with us agriculturists in helping to make agriculture more prosperous, because I see no outlet for the unemployed workers in those distressed area other than the land. I do not speak in any partisan spirit, and do not want to make any party taunts, but so long ago as 1924 the present Prime Minister pledged himself to increase the balance of country workers as against town workers. We have seen a contrary result.
What is the reason for this decay of the agricultural industry? Costs, compared with pre-war, have increased—no one can doubt that—and prices have not increased. I have here some figures which were given to me yesterday. I always take off my hat to the statistical department of the Ministry of Agriculture; they supply really admirable information. In June, 1913—that is, before the War—the price of fat cattle was 37s. 3d. per cwt. and the price of fat cattle this last June was 33s. 8d.—the subsidy brought it to 38s. 8d. That really means that without the subsidy the price of fat cattle was actually below pre-war, although costs are doubled. Can farmers go on producing with such prices prevailing? In the case of dairy cows the prices are much the same. Store cattle were £12 3s. per head in June, 1913, and are £11 3s. to-day, that is, actually lower than pre-war. Butter was 11s. 6d. for 12 lb. before the War, and was 10s. 3d. this last month. Cheese was 69s. 6d. per cwt. before the War, and it is 68s. to-day. Therefore the prices of many of the most important items of agricultural produce are actually less than pre-war.
My hon. Friend opposite referred to wages. If the wages of agricultural workmen had been reduced by the same amount as prices have fallen since 1925—wages were first fixed in 1925 and fixed at about £80 a year—wages in 1934 would be £55 a year. That is £25 a year less, proportionate to the fall in the value of produce; and with 800,000 labourers that means £20,000,000 less a year would have been paid. I am not one of those who think that the agricultural labourer is too well paid. As the hon. Member opposite said, the agricultural labourer is a skilled man, and I should like to see him better paid. The hon. Member talked about inspectors. All the inspectors in the world can never compel an employer to employ a man unless the produce will justify it. As I have said many times the best inspector for agricultural wages would be two farmers soliciting the services of one man. If two masters want one man wages will go up; if two men are searching for one master wages will go down.
I wish to approach this question from the point of view of national safety. The first essential in such a country as this, as was proved during the war, is food. Many of our industries are now coming to London, and I am sorry for it. That is a danger from the national point of view, because all have to be fed through the Port of London. A country that is not provisioned must be vulnerable. I am bewildered and amazed at the talk of war. After the agony of the last war I am astounded that anybody should think or dream of war. But there are dictators in the world. I hear that this is what Signor Mussolini told the Chamber of Deputies last year:
War is to man as maternity is to woman.… I do not believe in perpetual peace; not only that, I consider that it depresses and negatives the fundamental virtues of man, which only in bloody effort reveal themselves in the full light of the sun.
Suppose one of those dictators took it into his head to attack England. We should want to be not only strong in arms but to be well provisioned. The hon. Gentleman talked about the Wheat Act. The Wheat Act has given us four and a-half more weeks of wheat for flour than there were three years ago. That is an advantage. What would the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) have given
for four and a-half weeks' supply of wheat in 1917? No one can estimate meat value. The Government are going to put a check upon that supply, but I would say, "Go on. Let the agriculturists of this country produce as much as they can for 45s. a quarter." That is not an unreasonable price. No one can say that the price of bread in this country is at an unreasonable figure, especially if compared with the price in any foreign country. I regret very much the limitation which the Government has put on. We asked not only for a reasonable price, but for a stable price, and 45s. is a reasonable price, considering the cost of production. There is also some kind of stability.
In horticulture the Government began very well. They began with tariffs and duties on horticultural products, but I cannot see why agriculture as a whole should be treated differently from iron and steel. I heard the President of the Board of Trade yesterday say that the iron and steel industry had made a marvellous recovery. Why not treat the agricultural industry as you do the iron and steel industry? I observed in a publication the other day the Government say that we should put up prices. I would infinitely rather put up prices to the 1925 level, when there were only 1,000,000 unemployed, than see prices at their present level, with 2,000,000 unemployed. I agree that prices were higher in 1925, but we now have 1,000,000 more unemployed who cannot be costing the country less than £50,000,000 a year. If there were a rise in prices with a greater volume of employment, that would enormously benefit the country.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Don Valley will wish to complete his education on agricultural matters and I hope to be able now to give him a little more information. We are subjected in this country to inequitable competition. The coal miners would not stand it for a moment if they were met with competition from coal producers working under depreciated currencies. Our agricultural competitors have depreciated currencies. In Argentina, which is a great producer of beef, the currency is depreciated 40 per cent. in relation to sterling. Denmark has a 25 per cent. depreciated currency. I do not know what the currency figure is in
Russia. Holland gives large subsidies. Those are difficulties with which agriculturists have to deal. My hon. Friend said, "You are not efficient." I ask him as a fair-minded man to consider that here are men who have endeavoured to keep their heads above water in these times. They produce a larger crop of wheat per acre than any farmers in the world. They produce the finest stock of any farmers in the world. Can it be suggested that such men are not efficient? Some are, of course, more efficient than others, as there are Members of Parliament who are more efficient than others. That is natural.
When my hon. Friend talked about the Danes I remembered reading a day or so ago that Danish farmers—in one paper they were said to number 30,000, and in another 50,000—went to see their King. They are more enterprising than our farmers. I dare say that if our farmers came up here and held an unemployed demonstration they might impress the minds of hon Members. The Dominions have a depreciated currency. I have said all I wish to say at present about Ottawa, but I would point out that Australia and New Zealand have depreciated their currency 25 per cent. below sterling. If hon. Members will read the very illuminating report on the subject from the "Times" correspondent published in to-day's paper, they will see that in Australia the Scullin policy of very high Protection invited reprisals from Continental countries, and consequently Australia was not able to send her primary products to those countries. Those products were, therefore, dumped on this country. That is undoubted. Australia subsidises her products. Australian butter is sold more cheaply in London than it is in Melbourne. That is inequitable competition, subsidised competition. In October, 1931, the Prime Minister sent a message to the nation. This was part of it:
Farmers must be protected from dumping.
They have not been protected from dumping. I have here the New Deal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and he says:
We recommend that effective measures be taken to prevent dumping, whether from foreign countries or from the Dominions.
One would hope that with both those eminent men, the Prime Minister and the
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, endeavouring to protect us against dumping, something will be done. I regret very much that the Government have not taken more stringent steps to prevent the selling of produce in this country at a lower price than that at which it is sold in the country of origin. That is dumping.
My hon. Friend talked about marketing. I am not going to say much about marketing. The eloquence of the Minister of Agriculture, in the phrase of my old friend Lord Fisher, "would talk a bird out of a bush." My right hon. Friend has been most eloquent on these marketing schemes. I have always been very sceptical, because they were hatched by the party opposite. I never liked the marketing schemes and never thought they would succeed, although I will try to make them succeed. But there will be a very great difficulty. These Socialistic schemes have to be buttressed by subsidies from the Exchequer lest they fall, and then we are taunted from the benches opposite that the agriculturists are demanding doles. These schemes demand doles. I would very much prefer to see a straightforward tariff placed on products coming into the country. Agriculture has been sacrificed, despite all the fulminations of the hon. Member for Don Valley. We live to-day under a system whereby agricultural necessities are taxed. I have a list of them here, which I have given to the House before. Only the other day the oil from the soya bean was taxed in order to help Lancashire industry. We were told that Argentina cannot pay her debts. Agriculture has to carry the bondholders on its back. Hon. Friends who represent the coal mines are anxious to get a better market for coal, and the Danes and others are enabled to send their dairy and bacon products to compete with us.
I say, therefore, that those who work on the land deserve greater consideration and that it was infinitely better to work on the land than elsewhere. I never put coal in a fire without thinking that some miner has been down into the bowels of the earth to get it. They would be better employed digging the earth to produce food than digging coal for export to pay for
foreign agricultural produce. Let us see how agriculture has been dealt with in regard finance. In 1921 the Conversion 3½ per cent. loan was issued at 65. Today it shows an appreciation of 66 per cent. If anyone had put money into agricultural land, there would not have been an appreciation but a decrease of anything from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. Whether or not this be the swan song of this Parliament, I would ask hon. Members here, as I shall ask in the country when the election comes, whether it is fair that men who work long hours, seven days a week, should be penalised, and whether those who do nothing but draw dividends should reap a rich reward. The financial interests, of course, may be against it, but the City of London and other large cities will be in a queer state if there is a decaying agricultural industry. I notice that there are schemes for putting more men on the land, but let us in the first place keep those men on the land who are there already. They have the experience; they are there; they know their work; and, while I welcome land settlement, the men must be skilled men, or they will fail. Let us strive to build up a rural population by keeping those men on the soil who know and understand its cultivation.

5.31 p.m.

Colonel Sir EDWARD RUGGLESBRISE: I feel sure that there is no Member in any quarter of the House who will not echo the concluding sentences of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). One of the major problems which has been before the agricultural world for a long time has been, not how to take an increased number of wage-earners on to the land, but how to maintain on the land those who were already there. If the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) had been in his place, I should have liked to say a word or two to him on that subject, for it is clear that, if the industry had been allowed to go on unassisted during recent years, the number of agricultural workers would have fallen, not by tens of thousands, but by hundreds of thousands, until we should have had an almost derelict countryside. If the Government are to be commended in any respect as regards their agricultural policy, it is that at least they have done something to stay
the fall in the number of people employed on the land.
Now that the hon. Member for Don Valley has returned, I would say to him, with regard to where the money has gone that has been awarded by way of subsidies, that the whole of the money which has gone in various ways through State channels to the farming community has gone out again in the form of wages to agricultural workers. I do not think that that statement will be challenged by anyone who has any first-hand knowledge of farming on a large or even a small scale, and who has to find the cash with which to pay the wages at the end of the week. From my own personal experience, after a fairly wide study of that part of the subject, I can say that the statement I have made is absolutely correct.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Baronet confirm the statement I made recently, that direct and indirect subsidies pay every penny of the wages of workers in agriculture?

Sir E. RUGGLES-BRISE: I think it is absolutely true to say that every penny goes towards paying wages. It is quite easy to understand it, for the reason just given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton when the hon. Gentleman did not happen to be here. The agricultural price index figure to-day is about 112, that is to say, 12 points over the pre-war level, while the index figure for wages is something like 100 points over the pre-war level, so that the truth of what I have just said is manifest, and I do not think it will be controverted.
Had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) been here, I should have liked to challenge his arithmetic. Not very long ago we had a Debate in this House on the question of the amount of the beet-sugar subsidy. Unfortunately, on that occasion, after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall had made his speech and given certain figures, he was not able to remain to hear the comments on them. To-day he has repeated what is such a mistake of fact in regard to figures that I feel obliged to correct him once more. He stated just now that the Government were proposing to give a subsidy of
some £6,000,000 a year to the sugar-beet industry, but that, of course, is not at all an accurate statement. If the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read the White Paper issued yesterday afternoon and do a very little simple arithmetic for himself, he will find that the amount of the subsidy which has to be found in respect of the sugar-beet industry is £2,900,000, from which amount must be deducted £2,300,000 repaid to the Exchequer in the form of excise. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) is here. I would ask him by what rule of arithmetic he can dispute the absolute accuracy of what I have said? I put it to him that the net amount which the taxpayer will have to find through the Exchequer to support the sugar-beet industry will be £600,000. Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say in denial of that statement?

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I said it in my last speech on this subject.

Sir E. RUGGLES-BRISE: I am not in the least surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not deny my statement. No doubt he has taken the trouble to read the White Paper, which apparently the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall has not. I am very glad to find that the statement I have just made is incontrovertible, namely, that the actual amount which the taxpayer will be called upon to pay through the Exchequer to support the sugar-beet industry will not be £6,000,000, as was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall, but £600,000—a slight difference.
Having cleared up that point without challenge, I would like to mention one or two matters in relation to the action which has been taken by the Government during the last three or four years to come to the assistance of the agricultural industry. I will not go over the whole catalogue, because the hon. Member for Don Valley covered most of the ground, and, I think, covered it in several respects quite fairly, though I was not able to agree with many of the deductions which he drew. It is quite certain that, but for the action taken by the Government, several of the great branches which go to make up the complete industry of agriculture would have collapsed, and, if that collapse had taken place, it would
not merely have been the farmers who would have suffered; the farm workers would have suffered just as greatly, if not to a greater extent.
The various methods adopted by the Government have all, I think, been alluded to in previous speeches, but I should like to make this comment with regard to one or two of them. The straight tariff has been used as regards horticulture, and it is interesting to note, from a reply given by the Minister within the last few days, that there has been a large increase in the area of land under vegetables. That is an instance where a straight tariff has been definitely beneficial. On the other hand, some industries have not had the benefit of a straight tariff—the cattle industry, for instance. We know that the Government decided that as regards meat there should be no application of the straight tariff. In that case they prefer to experiment with the instrument of the quota, or quantitative restriction.
I know that my right hon. Friend would be the first to admit that that experiment has not been wholly successful, and, in view of the fact that it has not been wholly successful, I think the Government are greatly to be commended for the promptitude with which they came to the assistance of the cattle industry when the bottom fell out of world prices for meat. Although it is true that the present level of meat prices is not by any means what would normally be expected or desired, the Government, having tried one experiment and found it to be not wholly successful, did not hesitate to do what they could in reason to fill up the gap. In passing I would like to say that I think the Cattle Committee, who have had the working of that particular scheme, deserve a word of praise. They have really worked extremely well, and I think it will be agreed in all quarters of the House that the payments out of the Cattle Fund have been made quite smoothly and efficiently.
The store man feels a little aggrieved that he has been left out in the cold, and it is true that nothing has been done for him directly, but I think he should be reminded that the real remedy of the man who produces the store animal lies in the hope that sooner or later we shall get a reasonable price level for the finished article, namely, meat. If the man who finishes the animals finds that
he has a ready market at a reasonably remunerative price for the finished article, he will be a ready buyer of store cattle. Therefore, I hope that the keeper of store cattle will not feel that his prospects for the future are too black. I know that I may not discuss it, but the Government have now announced as a definite policy that they intend to apply the method of the tariff levy to beef in the future, and I feel sure that all those who are interested in the cattle industry will welcome that declaration very warmly. It is known that as regards mutton and lamb the use of the quota instrument has been reasonably successful. Happily the disasters of the year 1932, when price of mutton and lamb fell away to nothing, have passed, and for the last two years the prices of sheep and lambs have been on a fairly reasonable basis.
I have only a word to say about the pig and bacon schemes. Now that we have a marketing scheme and there is also to be a development scheme, I feel sure that that will be an interesting experiment which will receive encouragement from all quarters of the House. While on the subject of bacon, I should like to say a word about what was said by the hon. Member for Don Valley. He attempted to make a good deal of play with the fact that at one point there was a considerable rise in the price of bacon, when a smaller quantity of bacon was imported from Denmark. He will correct me if I am wrong in saying that the price of bacon to-day is no higher—in fact, a little lower—than the price of bacon at the time when his party held the reins of government in 1931. If he will compare the prices, he will see for himself that that is so. Therefore, if there has been any falling off in the consumption of bacon in this country, it is not due to any abnormal rise in price; the price to-day is virtually the same as it was when the Labour party were in office. What did happen, however, was that, at the time of the world crisis, with bacon as with so many other things, the bottom fell out of the market as regards price, and a whole lot of bacon was flooded into this country and offered to the public at prices which were completely and absolutely unremunerative. But that could not go on, so the Danes cut the throats of a million of their breeding sows in order to reduce the appalling glut of bacon on the world market. Having done that, the situation began to right itself until
supplies eventually came more or less into relation with demand.
I do not think the hon. Member will attempt to challenge anything that I have said in relation to the history of the matter as regards bacon. [Interruption.] The reason why they cut the throats of the million breeding sows was simply that they saw that the supply was grossly exceeding the demand, and now we have got back to a more or less normal position. The reason I raised this point with the hon. Member was simply that he tried to make play with a matter which really cannot bear the interpretation which he put upon it.
Eggs and poultry have been dealt with by two methods. There has been the the tariff, and quantitative restriction has been applied. No one will claim that the measures taken have been adequately successful. I think the tariff has not been sufficiently high. It might have been a good deal higher on eggs, though it is fairly reasonable on poultry. In addition to that, I do not think the application of the quota as regards eggs has been stringent enough. Last autumn the price of eggs was completely shattered because Turkey sent us supplies which in the normal way would have gone to some other customer of hers, but that customer happened to fall out of the market at the pyschological moment and Turkey, like any other country having a surplus, sent it to England for what it would fetch, with the result that our poultry keepers had to take a most unremunerative price just at the time of year when they look to reap their little harvest. Within the last month the same thing has happened with regard to Holland. Holland has sent us a great excess of eggs. If we are going to have quantitative restriction at all, it must be properly and stringently supplied, and other countries should not be in a position to come at will, as both Turkey and Holland have done, and spoil the markets for our own producers.
In the case of milk, again there has been a great experiment. Marketing boards were a great experiment, not wholly successful. It has been found necessary, wherever a marketing board has been put in operation, to buttress it in some way, by quantitative restriction or by means of a subsidy. I hope milk producers, in their own best
interests, will not neglect to keep the present milk marketing scheme in being. It is quite well accepted that the scheme is faulty, but I believe that on the whole the board has done extremely well within the limits within which it has been compelled to work by the limitations of the scheme. It is absolutely essential that the Milk Marketing Board should be kept in being, and it is equally essential that the details of the scheme should be drastically amended. I hope, therefore, that the milk producers will vote next month to maintain the existence of the scheme and of the board. It has certainly one great feather in its cap. It is a great achievement to have found a market for all the milk that has been thrown at its head. [Interruption.] At all events, it has been sold at some kind of a price whereas, if the producer had poured it down the drain, he would have got no price whatever.
I welcome the declaration of the Government that in regard to milk and milk products they intend to make use of the tariff. I think they have chosen a very wise course, and I hope that, just as in regard to meat, so in regard to milk, when the Government has its hands free from the shackles of the various Treaties that it has entered into, the experiment that it intends to put into operation both in regard to milk and meat will be as successful as the model scheme, the Wheat Act, and no one except the hon. Baronet the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) will deny that that part of the Government's policy at least has had a 100 per cent. success.
I hope that in the coming season, which is now close upon us and has already arrived in some districts, the malting barley crop will readily pass into consumption and be bought by the brewing industry. The brewing industry has shown indications, especially lately, that it has every intention of taking the malting crop off the hands of farmers and buying it at a reasonable price level. I sincerely trust and believe that the brewers have every intention of carrying out that promise, and, more than that, of carrying out the pledge that they gave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a year or two ago. But I do not think the position is altogether satisfactory. It is left too fluid and too vague. I think it would be much more satisfactory that we should have a reasonable duty on barley of malting
quality, and in that way the farmer should have some more definite sense of security than he has now in relying on the good will of the only buyers he has for his product, namely the brewers.
As regards oats, there has been a rather interesting example of the working of the tariff. In the case of oats the tariff is a very considerable one, and it might have been thought by some Members that, in consequence, the consumer might have had to pay a rather excessive price. In point of fact, I cannot find that he has any complaint to make whatever as regards the price that he has been asked to pay. On the other hand, I find that the grower who has oats to sell after satisfying his own requirements has been able to secure a somewhat higher price level than before. It is very satisfactory to know that the tariff secures a double object. It is of assistance to the producer without hurting the consumer.
Every encouragement should be given to the Potato Marketing Board. They are making a gallant effort to put that branch of the industry on its feet. It is not possible, however, for the industry to stand alone with only a Marketing Board. It has to be balanced both by a tariff and by quantitative regulations. Hops have a Marketing Board, but there again the Marketing Board per se is not found to be an adequate instrument to secure the complete position of the hop growers, and the Board has to be supported by a considerable tariff and also by a stringent agreement made with the brewers.
I should like now to speak as an agricultural producer myself. For 100 years the State in its wisdom, or unwisdom, has decided that agriculture was an industry which could and should be allowed to look after itself. At last, and in the face of great adversity, a Government came into being which decided to reverse that policy. It realised at long last that the agricultural industry was one of such vast importance to the general well-being of the country as a whole that on national grounds alone it was absolutely necessary to try to rescue it from complete collapse and decay. However much agriculturists may feel aggrieved with any of the details under any of the schemes now in operation, at least let the English farmer take heart. He can feel that there is a Government
to-day which can show that its activities have covered almost every single branch of this great industry of agriculture.
I hope that from that point of view encouragement may be felt throughout the whole of the agricultural community I believe agricultural workers are beginning to realise the importance to them of the recognition of their industry by the Government, and it is to be hoped that there will be no setback to the new outlook which this Government has upon the industry. I should prefer to see the industry with all its ramifications completely removed from the realm of politics. I believe it is of such vital importance and magnitude and one of such wealth-producing proclivities in the national interest that I really think it would be to the advantage of the nation as a whole if it could be removed from the arena of party strife altogether. That may not be possible, but at least let us hope that, once the National Government has shown the nation that it considers the agricultural industry to be of such value that it is essential to sustain it and to keep it from falling into decay in a period of abnormally low prices, the example that has been set by the National Government will be followed by every successive Government of whatever political hue. I think that the farmer to-day will say that the present Government have been carving out a new path in relation to his industry, and it is one which I hope every successive Government will take for their guidance.

6.1 p.m.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes, and certainly not to cover the large range of subjects on which it has been addressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise). The Debate, indeed, was opened to-day by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in a remarkably comprehensive, thorough and thoughtful speech, for which the whole House, irrespective of our particular political views, ought to be grateful to him. For my part, I propose to refer only to the statement that was made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture on the subject of the beet sugar subsidy, a matter in which, as some hon. Members know, I have taken an interest for some years. The Bill which
we are now discussing is the Appropriation Bill, and there is a customary phrase in its Preamble to which, if it were in order, one would perhaps be inclined to move an Amendment. The Preamble says:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled, towards making good the supply which we have cheerfully granted to Your Majesty in this Session of Parliament, have resolved to grant unto Your Majesty"—
certain sums. It is the word "cheerfully" which has a certain ironic significance, and perhaps in particular in respect to the items embodied in the Schedule to this Bill devoted to the beet sugar subsidy. The epithet "cheerfulness," I think, hardly applies to that grant. In this Bill also is included a proportion of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, and although we recognise the great energy and zeal which he devotes to the duties of his office, still, when his salary is being voted, it is quite legitimate and proper that we should comment on his activities in any particular direction which we do not wholly approve, and that is the case of many of us in regard to the beet sugar subsidy. The matter is highly technical, and the statement which was published as a White Paper yesterday is very elaborate, but one simple point clearly emerges. The Committee appointed by the Government to examine the whole subject of British beet sugar reported by a majority of two members against one member that this subsidy was unjustifiable, that the advantages gained were inadequate, that the industry had no prospects of becoming self-supporting, that the crop at present prices really has no value at all and has to be paid for entirely by the subsidy, and that in general the subsidy ought to be discontinued, allowing a short period of three years in which it could be gradually reduced so as not to cause too sudden a shock to those who were engaged in it. That is the recommendation. It is perfectly plain from the White Paper that has been presented that that recommendation has been wholly rejected. The Government now have decided to continue the subsidy, and without any limit of time.
When the subsidy was originally established, it was to be for 10 years. It
was asked at first for a period of only five years. Afterwards, when a Bill was introduced and passed through Parliament, it became a period of 10 years, and the expectation was that, if in that period the industry did not become self-supporting, the experiment should be brought to an end. The period of 10 years was concluded, and then, as the Government were not ready with their recommendations, Parliament was induced to pass an extension for one year more. Now we are to have a Bill which is to continue the subsidy indefinitely. We are told that this burden is to be continued for an unlimited period without conditions of that kind. The second point is that the cost of the subsidy, although no exact figures are obtainable and none have been presented, appears likely to be very much of the same order in the future as it has been in the past. If that is wrong, I shall be very grateful if the Minister of Agriculture will say so and will give—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The right hon. Gentleman cannot go into the details of the White Paper issued yesterday which will also require legislation, and, if that is the case, the matter cannot be discussed now.

Sir H. SAMUEL: In so far as it would require legislation, I fully understand that it would be out of order for me to go into details, but am I not in order in following the example of hon. Members who have preceded me in this Debate, certainly the hon. Member for Don Valley, the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), all of whom dealt with the statement made yesterday and with the negotiations which have been proceeding between the Government and the industry? Should I not be in order, at all events, in commenting on the general policy?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I rather thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going beyond the terms of general policy, and was going into detail. He is quite entitled to comment that it is undesirable for the Government to proceed in this way.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I will certainly conform to your Ruling, and will omit the
few observations I was about to make with regard to this particular proposal, but I think I shall be in order in giving some reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maldon with regard to the cost, and to invite the Minister of Agriculture to give same estimate of what the cost is likely to be. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maldon has repeated the obvious fallacy that the amount of the assistance as a whole is only in the neighbourhood of £600,000 a year instead of, as we declare, £6,000,000 a year. The fact of the matter, as the hon. and gallant Member well knows, is that if this sugar were imported from abroad—and I have made this point before—and there were no beet sugar industry in this country, the revenue would receive about £5,250,000 in duty instead of the £2,300,000 which it now receives in excise. Consequently, owing to the beet sugar industry, the revenue of the Exchequer is £3,000,000 the poorer. It receives £2,000,000 in excise, and loses £5,000,000 in duty. That is the inevitable effect and the simple arithmetical statement which the hon. and gallant Member entirely ignores.

Sir E. RUGGLES-BRISE: The statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) was to the effect that the taxpayer was to be asked to contribute £6,000,000 a year to subsidise the beet sugar industry. I pointed out that, if the excise is deducted from the amount of subsidy, the amount is not £6,000,000 but £600,000, and the figures are in my hands before me here, as they are before the right hon. Gentleman. It is no good saying that if there had been a duty, and if so many tons of goods had come in, then there would have been accruing to the Revenue so much, and that that is foregone and therefore the taxpayer is giving that to the industry. It is not an argument that could possibly be made.

Sir H. SAMUEL: This matter was fully debated on the last occasion it came before the House, and it was conclusively proved to the satisfaction of everyone who has regard to the whole of the facts that the cost to the State is the £6,000,000 which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall has declared. We cannot exclude the loss of duty. Sugar has been a source of revenue in this country for many years. The Exchequer relies
on a sugar tax to provide the needs of the Budget, and I repeat that if there were no beet sugar subsidy, the revenue would be the richer by £5,000,000 duty, and the poorer by £2,000,000 excise. Consequently it loses £3,000,000. That is an incontrovertible fact. We have discussed this so often that it is now perfectly clear. If you say that you are going to ignore the duty, then your case is made out, but you must not ignore the duty. The same position would arise if it were alcohol, tobacco or any other commodity. If we grew tobacco in England to an enormous extent and allowed an immense rebate of duty, that would be a loss to the State, and an assistance to that tobacco growing industry which would be somewhat similar to the present one now given to sugar.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: If the right hon. Gentleman carried his argument to its logical conclusion, it would mean that if we had no agriculture in this country, the Treasury would be so much better off.

Sir H. SAMUEL: That was dealt with before in the last Debate, and I do not wish to weary the House and myself by repeating again and again what must be perfectly obvious, that if—as was said quite rightly, and appears in every official report and every ministerial answer from that bench—the assistance given to the beet sugar industry is of two kinds—one is a direct subsidy and the other is a remission of half taxation, and the two together amount to £6,000,000 a year, and that if the sugar beet industry were no longer helped, the Treasury would be the richer by £6,000,000 a year as a consequence. That is certain and obvious, and the fact that some excise is paid, about half the amount that would be paid in duty, does not alter that fact, and is, indeed, taken into consideration. Therefore, the industry has been costing, and still costs, about £1 for every day for every man who is employed in its service.
There is one point upon which I would like to congratulate the Government in this connection—it is a rare occasion that I am able to do so—and that is, that they have not yielded to the temptation of dealing with this matter in a simple though somewhat surreptitious manner by saying that they will no longer trouble Parliament again and again to vote direct
subsidies, but will simply sweep away the remaining excise, and the beet sugar industry will receive over £2,000,000 in that way, and consequently nearly as much money as they received before, and the matter will be concealed from the public. That was urged upon us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and several representatives of the agricultural industry, who said, "Why not simply repeal the whole of the taxes and then we shall hear nothing about the matter?" That would be an equal burden on the Exchequer, and I am glad that the Government did not yield to the temptation. I thought that they might be weak enough to do so, but they have rather said, "We will frankly come to the House for the money we require and use the money as an opportunity for securing a certain measure of re-organisation in the industry." The Government recognise the strength of public feeling against this ruinous expenditure of public money, because they say in their statement that there is to be a limit on the amount of sugar to be produced and the amount of acreage cultivated. The White Paper says:
It is not desired to encourage production in excess of this amount.
Why not? If this is such a great boon to agriculture, if this crop is such a valuable one to the farmer, and if employment is encouraged to such a large degree, why not encourage it in every direction? But the White Paper says, "No, there is to be a limit set, and nothing is to be done beyond what is now being done." Why? It is a confession and an admission that the cost of this industry is enormously heavy on the public at large, and the Government dare not venture to go on allowing it to expand more and more at this immense expense of £1 per day for every man employed without some definite limit. That is a most important admission to which I respectfully desire to call the attention of the House. Every argument advanced by the defenders of this subsidy is an argument against that particular paragraph in the White Paper which has been presented to us.
With regard to the reorganisation of the industry, there has been no time for a
technical examination of the matter, but there is another point in the White Paper to which attention should be drawn. In paragraph 6 it is pointed out that the experience of the industry shows that the profits are very different in different localities. In spite of these lavish subsidies, while a great number of the factories, especially in the Eastern Counties, the Anglo-Dutch companies have been making enormous profits and paying dividends of 10, 15 and 20 per cent. free of tax year after year, with enormous capital bonuses distributed to shareholders, at our expense, other factories, especially in Scotland, have not proved profitable at all. The White Paper gives the reason. It says:
Experience has shown that the costs of the several factories vary widely, owing, among other reasons, to their situation having been chosen with the special object of enabling the benefits of State assistance to be spread over as wide an agricultural area as possible. If therefore the factories were to be left independent, the rate of assistance must either be such as would keep all the factories in existence, in which case it would be unfair to the Exchequer and unjustifiably generous to the lower-cost units, or, if it is to be fair to the Exchequer, it must be on such a scale as would make it impossible for the higher-cost factories—not merely one or two exceptional units, but a large proportion of the whole—to carry on, thus defeating the purpose for which the industry is primarily maintained.
In other words, these factories have been put not in districts which are economic and most suited for their successful operation, but they have been dotted over the country in all kinds of places unsuitable for the industry, in order to give a further artificial stimulus to beet-growing in those areas. A more uneconomic proposal could not possibly be made. The result has been that certain factories have been making enormous profits while others have been working at a loss, and if they are all to be kept in existence independently you must either give unduly large subsidies to the uneconomic factories or else give unduly large profits to the economic ones. That is the dilemma with which the Government have been faced. The one, they say, is unfair to the Treasury, and the other would lead to the disappearance of the factories in the unsuitable districts.
What are the Government going to do? They are going to combine the factories.
They are not going to say: "These factories which are in the wrong districts and are run at a loss are to stop, and we are going to assist only those factories in the suitable districts." On the contrary, they say that all the factories ought to be amalgamated, their funds pooled and the losses of the one set off against the profits of the other, and the taxpayer is to maintain the whole. That is the proposal. The Government say that that must be done because the factories that have been put in the wrong districts must be maintained there on account of the agricultural needs of those districts. Again, a confession of an utterly uneconomic policy. It has been proved by 10 years' experience that certain factories ought never to have been built from the point of view of the industry, but, instead of dropping them, they are to be continued and the rest of the industry is to be made to carry them. That is not the only reason why these particular factories have been unprofitable. The question of management and skill has entered into the matter very largely.
The refining industry is to be brought into the scheme in a manner which it has not yet been possible to examine. The White Paper was published only recently and no expert investigation has yet been possible. Therefore, I must reserve my remarks on that subject until a later date. I would, however, draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one point in the White Paper, and perhaps he will answer it. It was stated in the report of the Greene Committee with regard to the arrangements made for the refining industry that they had been given an undue advantage. Again, that industry is enormously profitable. The £1 shares of Tate and Lyle, which has almost a monopoly in refining in Great Britain, have gone up to £5. We know that immense capital bonuses have been distributed, besides large dividends. I think that the dividend this year was 22½ per cent. The Greene Committee, in referring to this matter, say:
We have come to the conclusion that the arrangements made in 1928 were unduly favourable to the refining industry.
That is to say, the arrangements made under Government auspices have been responsible for the refiners being able to make these colossal profits. I should like
to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the arrangements now made are, in effect, different from those made in 1928? I cannot find from the White Paper any suggestion that they are to be altered. I may, perhaps, have overlooked some point. I put it merely by way of a query. Has that paragraph in the Report of the Greene Committee who, after close investigation, condemned the arrangements as being unduly profitable to the refining companies, been taken into consideration and will that arrangement be revised?

Mr. ELLIOT: In the statement of policy which I made at Question Time yesterday there is a paragraph dealing with that point. It will be found in the third paragraph from the end of my statement, in the OFFICIAL REPORT:
For the purpose of their immediate sugar policy, the Government do not propose to make any change in the details of the Customs, Excise or subsidy scales. They have, however, aimed at securing the financial effects, as regards all the interests concerned, which it is reasonable to expect would have followed from the adoption of the Greene Committee's recommendations with regard to the regulation of refined sugar production as between the beet sugar factories and the refiners.
So that although we have not adopted the precise machinery of the Greene Committee's Report, we have made arrangements which, in our opinion, will give the same financial effect.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I am not quite sure that that covers the point to which I am referring. The White Paper says:
On general grounds they would wish to avoid any arrangement which would entrust the power to control sugar prices to a body appointed by the Government. They have received"—
This is the important sentence—
from the refiners an assurance in a satisfactory form that it is not their intention to raise the refining margin above the parity of the present level.
When I read that sentence I was not quite sure what it meant, but it seemed to imply that the present level—which is what I understood the Greene Committee condemned—is to be maintained, and the refiners have merely undertaken that they will not use their monopolistic powers to make the situation still worse and still more favourable to their own advantage.

Mr. ELLIOT: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the reference to the paragraph in the White Paper which deals with that point. It is in the preceding paragraph 21, where we indicate the machinery by which the Government will secure the same financial results that would have followed from the adoption of the Greene Committee's recommendation. It is a fairly long, detailed and extremely intricate paragraph, into which it would be wrong for me to enter now, but that is the paragraph where the arrangements are set out, and they will, in the Government's opinion, have the same effect as the adoption of the paragraph in the Greene Report.

Sir H. SAMUEL: That is so far satisfactory, and I hope that it will work out that way in practice. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to secure that it will.
There is only one other matter to which I would refer, and that is with regard to the system of licensing which is contemplated in respect of sugar refining. Licensing is an admirable word, but licensing may mean a monopoly. If there is to be a monopoly it is important that the sugar consumers should be properly and adequately safeguarded, not only the general public, who are the retail purchasers of sugar for domestic consumption, but the very important trades, the confectionery and allied sugar-consuming trades which employ many times as many people as the whole of the beet sugar industry employs, either in the factories or on the farms. I hope that in any arrangements that are made in the future this question, especially of a monopoly under the name of licensing, and the protection of the interests of the consumer will be fully considered. It is not possible to estimate under such a scheme what the exact cost is likely to turn out in its operation, but it is clear that this wholly uneconomic industry is still to be maintained at the public expense, and this weight is still to be tied round the neck of the country.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has chosen this opportunity to launch another of his broadsides upon this unhappy sugar-beet industry, the victim of his oratory, I would almost say, of his friendly spleen.
The right hon. Gentleman hates this industry, and it is something of an occasion for the House of Commons to hear so distinguished a man expressing his views in these circumstances.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I do not hate the industry. If the industry were self-supporting, I should bless it. What I hate is the charge upon the public exchequer.

Mr. STEWART: I will put it this way that the right hon. Gentleman hates the industry in its present form. When I hear him speaking about this industry it always reminds me of a rhyme that I read a long time ago about Dr. Lettsom the Quaker. He is supposed to have said:
If anybody comes to I,
I physicks, bleeds and sweats 'em;
If after that they like to die,
Why, what care I? I lets 'em.
The right hon. Gentleman is prepared to let this industry die, although at the smallest estimate—I think he mentioned it himself—it employs 20,000 people, while according to the estimate of the Minority Report it gives employment, directly and indirectly, to 80,000 people. He says that he is prepared to allow that industry to stop. I would ask him this plain question: Were he in the position of the Minister of Agriculture now would he be prepared to carry that policy into action? Were he the Prime Minister or a Member of the Government would he support the proposal he now makes to stop this industry altogether? Of course, he would do nothing of the kind. He would have to listen, as every Government must listen, to the claims of the growers, the farm workers and the Members of Parliament in the divisions concerned. It is an interesting fact, despite the remarks of the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), that the Farm Workers' Unions throughout the country are nearly all for the continuance of this subsidy.

Mr. LEONARD: Not the Scottish Farm Workers' Union.

Mr. STEWART: The Farm Workers' Union are not a very strong body, in the East of Scotland, but I would remind the hon. Member that at a recent meeting in Cupar the Labour candidate for the division was on the platform and spoke in favour of the subsidy. I was in the chair and I invited him to speak, and he was glad to do so. Moreover, Mr. George
Dallas, a former Member of this House and a prominent Member of the Farm Labourers' Union, was there and was the principal speaker. Let us, therefore, be rid of this humbug from the Labour party.

Mr. LEONARD: My reference was to the Scottish Farm Workers' Union, and if the hon. Member will read the observations of the general secretary I do not think he will find that he is in favour of a continuance of the subsidy.

Mr. STEWART: I know the general secretary of the Scottish Farm, Workers' Union—we meet occasionally—and he will be quite ready to admit that in many parts of Scotland, particularly in those parts most intimately concerned with sugar beet, his union does not exist. In the East Fife district there is no branch of the Farm Workers' Union. The right hon. Member for Darwen to-day was not quite so effective in his attack as usual. He used a series of arguments which are not only unsound, but demonstrably unsound. He reverted to his usual argument regarding the loss which the Exchequer suffers because of the amount of sugar which is not imported. That is quite true. On a former occasion I put a question to him which he did not answer. The question was: Why apply this particular argument to sugar? The right hon. Gentleman does not apply it to motor cars or to any other imported article. He took some part in imposing tariffs when he was a member of the Government, and I never heard him say at that time that the Exchequer was losing revenue on every motor car or ton of steel manufactured in this country. If you apply the argument logically it means that the right hon. Gentleman, if he had his way, would bolster up the Exchequer by importing every agricultural product we consume. He says that is absurd, of course, it is. But if the conclusion is absurd, so is the argument. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the revenue from all tariff and duty impositions goes to the Exchequer, and while there is a difference on paper between a duty on sugar and a duty on motor cars, the money goes into the same pool and is used for the same purpose. I repeat, therefore, that it is a fantastic argument.
The right hon. Gentleman then passed to a criticism of the Government's new
policy. He said that if it be right to maintain this industry, why put any restrictions upon it? It sounds a very destructive criticism, but if the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the report he will find that there is no limit put on the industry. There is a limit put on Government financial aid, but no limit on the expansion of the sugar beet industry itself in this country. I shall support the new policy of the Government at the proper time on the definite understanding that in as short a time as possibly Government aid will not be required. The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the inefficiency of some of the factories. On the last occasion he included Cupar in that category but he has informed himself better since, and now he says that it is placed in the wrong position.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I have never so described the factory; I do not know it.

Mr. STEWART: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find, if he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT, that he referred to Cupar, but I am glad that he does not include it as an inefficient factory. I shall support the new policy of the Government on the definite understanding that there will be a tapering off of Government assistance, and that plans are made to enable the industry to become independent. I agree that the handing out of subsidies to agriculture or any other industry is not a welcome thing, it is not a measure which anyone willingly accepts, but I support the beet sugar subsidy because I am convinced—knowing something about its inner working—that in time it can become self-supporting. The right hon. Gentleman examined the location of the factories and complained that they had been distributed over the country not with regard to economic considerations but rather in order that as large a part of the country as possible should benefit. Why does he criticise that? Why is it wrong? If the State has a certain amount of money to give to agriculture, why must it be concentrated in East Anglia? If the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) were Scottish Secretary he would not agree to the closing down of the Cupar factory. Why should not Scotland have a share of any assistance that is going?
But let me deal with the economics of the situation. I take the Cupar factory because it was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Darwen in the last Debate, who said that I had ranged myself as one of the defenders of the inefficient beet sugar factories. The Cupar factory is not inefficient. It is probably the most efficient factory in the whole country. The reason why it is not paying is that Scottish farmers were slow to respond to the invitation to grow beet because other crops were paying them better—corn, barley and so on—and it is only in the last two years, when the prices of these crops have fallen, that they have turned to this alternative crop. They would willingly expand. The Cupar factory is only working at half-capacity. If farmers in Scotland were able to double their production the beet sugar factory in Cupar would pay as well as any. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us the benefit of believing that we are efficient.
The new policy proposes amalgamation, and I am glad that it does. I have condemned in my constituency and elsewhere the making of these immense profits by certain factories. I have been perfectly plain with my constituents and with the farmers who grow sugar beet. I find that in Scotland denunciation of these excess profits receives as much acclamation as the demand for continuance of the industry. I have condemned the system which permits this misuse of public funds. The proposal for amalgamation will prevent it. It will not be a case of hiding inefficiency and spreading the subsidy over good and bad factories. When all these factories are amalgamated, it may be possible to arrange a central transport system. An hon. Member the other day gave us the instance of Woolworths; I give the instance of the Bacon Board, where arrangements have been made by which pigs can be transported to any factory at the same rate no matter where they are. If similar arrangements can be made in regard to sugar beet, the Cupar factory could get a full supply, work to full capacity and would be a paying proposition. Some factories have more to handle than they can cope with, they are overstocked with supplies, while others have not sufficient
supplies. With a central transport management you would overcome that difficulty and create more efficiency all round.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to face up to this fact. I had the honour and pleasure of serving under him for some years, and I joined with him in condemning this subsidy. But conditions have changed since then. In the last three years there has been almost a revolution in agricultural conditions throughout the world, and even if one dislikes subsidies, as most of us do if we are honest, nevertheless, in present conditions, I cannot support any plan which seeks by one inch to weaken the present position of agriculture in Great Britain. I must take whatever steps, steps which I should resist in any other circumstances, are available to keep the industry going. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to-day, and on the last occasion, adopted the attitude that all this form of assistance, subsidies, quotas and tariffs, is wrong, and suggested he would stop it if he were in power. I have in my hand a leaflet issued by the Labour party in my division, and I notice that in regard to the countryside it says of the Labour policy:
It will find work for tens of thousands of those who to-day are leaving it in despair and a chance of cultivation for many who now ask for land in vain.
The Labour party voted against the subsidy for beet sugar on the last occasion. They would deliberately withdraw it. That is to say, instead of putting tens of thousands of people to work on the land, they would literally put tens of thousands of people out of work. I am not going to forget that action of theirs of a few days ago when a Labour candidate stands in my division. The Minister of Agriculture in the last three years has had to perform sometimes a thankless and at all times a difficult job. He found conditions deteriorating in almost every section of agriculture. He found in the case of meat that prices had almost collapsed. I do not think that any farmer wants State assistance; all he asks is that he shall get a fair price for his produce. I do not know that that is so much a National Government policy or a Conservative policy. I have always thought that it was a sound Liberal policy, and in the latest version I find that it is put down as one
of the cardinal principles of Liberal policy that the farmer shall receive a fair profit on his work and a fair price for his produce. That is what the Minister is trying to obtain. Meat producers cannot get a fair price for their produce unaided. You may say that you object to subsidies, but anyone who takes a responsible view is bound to agree that some steps must be taken to improve prices.
I support the Government because I believe that, in very special and difficult circumstances, they have taken the only possible means of dealing with the position. I may be old-fashioned in this view but I have a very strong conviction that this country is no different from any other in that it can only remain great so long as its agriculture is sound and prosperous. So soon as agriculture is allowed to decline, so soon will the greatness of this nation decline. That statement, I feel sure, expresses the views of all hon. Members. Certainly that was the view of the Liberal party in days gone by. It was the basis of all their land policies in the past and I understand it is the basis of their land policy to-day. If that be true and if they rid their minds of humbug, they must support the Measures which the Government are now taking to keep this industry alive.

6.47 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I do not propose to follow the last two speakers in their remarks upon the sugar beet industry further than to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) indulged in one of his usual diatribes against the subsidy, and indeed against anything being done for this industry. He did not seem to take account of the fact that practically every agriculturist in the country whether living in a beet-producing area or not, would regard the loss of the beet production as a disaster to the whole agricultural industry. I think I am right in saying that the case of sugar beet is the only case—it is certainly the only case I know of—in regard to which the landowner, the farmer and the land-worker join in pointing out to the Government how essential it is that the industry should be preserved. My chief and indeed my only objection to the scheme of the Government is one to which the right hon. Gentleman referred namely the limit which is being placed on the amount of beet to be grown. I think our
object ought to be to encourage agricultural production in every branch as far as we can.
The fact that this subject has been selected by the Opposition for discussion on the present occasion shows that the whole country as well as this House realise the great importance of the agricultural industry. Although the importance of the industry is generally recognised I do not think it is generally recognised that the agricultural industry has as much right to protection as any other industry in the country. It is true that the Government have given some protection to agriculture and we are grateful for such protection as we have received. But that protection has only been sufficient to stop the decay in the industry. It has not been sufficient to enable the industry to prosper as it ought to prosper and to make that contribution towards the solution of the unemployment problem which it ought to be capable of making. The protection given to agriculture, so far, has just kept the industry alive and that is about all. That protection in some cases has been inadequate and it has been partial in its incidence. It has not been balanced and it has been given in such a way that the farmer has been tempted to give up producing one article and to take to the production of another article, regardless of whether there is a market for that other article or not.
This protection has been afforded to the industry by a variety of devices, such as tariffs, levies, subsidies, and quantitative control of imports. Tariffs when applied sufficiently drastically have proved successful but we must remember that there are a good many articles of agricultural production which cannot be properly protected by tariffs without making them too expensive to the consumer, and raising the price to a high level. We must therefore bear in mind that the tariff cannot be used in the case of every article of agricultural production. The method of subsidy is I think the most objectionable form of help which can be given to an industry, and quantitative control, which is the child of the Marketing Acts, has not proved wholly successful. In the case of wheat the method of a levy has been tried, and that undoubtedly has proved the most successful method in regard to agriculture
which the Government have applied. I am very glad that there is a proposal to extend this system to other articles of agricultural production. I believe it is a sound system and one which is likely to prove successful. I hope the Government realise the fact that it is not sufficient for us merely to keep the industry alive. The protection given to the industry must be such as will enable the efficient farmer to make a fair profit and to pay fair wages.
All the arrangements which are made in this connection should be framed with a view to encouraging the industry to expand and to produce a much larger proportion of the foodstuffs which we require. The only real fault in the Wheat Act is the limit which it places on production. The industry as I say ought to be encouraged to expand and that expansion could be made at the expense of foreign countries and not at the expense of our Dominions, by means of substantial preferences to the Dominions. It will be necessary, I believe, when using the system of the levy, to make use also of quotas to prevent the market being flooded at certain seasons. The Government will have to decide in that connection to what extent our production should expand. My own view is that it should be expanded as much as possible, and that we should do all we can to extend our agricultural production and come as near as possible to being self-supporting. It is obvious that this country cannot be completely self-supporting, but we ought to go as far as we can in that direction.
There is undoubtedly great room for expansion in the meat trade including the bacon trade. There is another side of the agricultural industry in which I believe we could become self-supporting and that is in poultry and eggs. Poultry farming is peculiarly suited to this country. It can be taken up by small men, it only requires small areas of ground and it is suitable for a small country like ours. I am afraid that the Minister has not been very successful with regard to the question of eggs and I cannot understand why he does not use the power which he has under the Marketing Acts to restrict their importation. Attempts to make friendly arrangements with foreign countries have failed.
Certainly the Netherlands have not paid any respect to our wishes and have flooded our markets with eggs during this year. There appears to be no doubt that a considerable quantity of the eggs from the Netherlands have been placed in cold storage and that those eggs will be produced in the autumn and sold as fresh foreign eggs. That is exceedingly unfair to producers in this country. If the home producers put their eggs into cold storage, the eggs, when taken out, have to be marked as "chilled," whereas the foreign eggs which have been in cold storage need not be marked in that way. I hope the Minister will take steps to ensure that any foreign eggs which are put into cold storage in this country are not sold without some mark showing that they have been so stored. There is also the question of the importation of Chinese liquid eggs. We know that these are produced under filthy conditions. If liquid eggs are necessary for use by confectioners in this country why should we not do something to have them produced in our Dominions or at home or at any rate under reasonably clean conditions?
I referred earlier to quantitative control as being the child of the Marketing Acts. I have never been very fond of the Marketing Acts. I am old-fashioned enough to wish to see people being allowed to run their own businesses in their own way, but I have supported these Acts because I considered them a necessary evil in present circumstances. I think there is no doubt that they have saved the milk and bacon sections of the industry from chaos. They have not been a complete success largely because they have not been properly supported by means of quantitative control. We had a right to think that they would be so supported and, as it is, our plans have received a set-back as a result of the foreign produce coming into this country. It is natural, however, when a huge scheme of this sort is started, that considerable difficulties should be encountered and that mistakes should be made. We were led to believe that these measures would result in better prices for the producers and lower prices to the consumer. Judged by that standard they undoubtedly have failed. They certainly have not had that result. It is necessary that they should be carefully examined in
order to see whether the distributors are not getting away with an unfair margin of profit and I hope that the Minister will examine that point. I also referred earlier to the question of subsidies in general. The beef subsidy has, undoubtedly, saved the beef industry from collapse. I would much sooner not have a subsidy and have the levy, which we understand we are to have in the future, but the Government have been unable to take that action, on account of certain trade agreements with other countries. There seems no doubt that agriculture has been sacrificed, if not in all these trade agreements, in a great many of them. It is urgently necessary that these trade agreements should be revised at the earliest possible moment.
To sum up what I think ought to be done in the future, I submit that it is of the first importance that agriculture should be given the same measure of protection as other industries and that the Government should inform the country that such is their intention. I also submit that the basis of that protection should be the maintenance of the standard of living, the encouragement of employment and the power to resist dumped surpluses and subsidised imports. The home producer should have the first place in the home market, the Dominions producer coming second and the foreigner taking third place. The trade agreements should be revised so as to ensure that this protection will be balanced and that farmers will not be driven into unbalanced production. The failure of the beef market for instance arose largely from overproduction of milk. Then we should aim at the development of our agriculture up to the limit of our requirements. Agriculture should be encouraged and not checked. I freely admit that help has been given to the industry and I am grateful to the Government for all that has been done. They have given more thought and more work to the agricultural industry than any other Government that any of us can remember. By the work which they have done up to the present they have succeeded in preventing the industry from collapsing. They have stopped decay. But we must remember that at the present time there are two subjects of paramount importance before the country, namely, the reduction of unemployment and the provision of home defence. If agriculture is given
adequate protection and properly encouraged, it can make a great contribution towards the solution of both those problems and I hope therefore that the Minister of Agriculture will see his way to do for this industry more than has been done up to the present.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: The two speakers who immediately preceded me have claimed to be old-fashioned and the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) gave us a definition of what it is to be old-fashioned in industry which appears to be that you run industry as you like. It is perhaps just because old-fashioned people have been running industry as they like, without regard to more sensible and reasonable methods of co-operation, that they have run into the difficulties which we see at the present time. I think it is regrettable that we have a Minister of Agriculture who is so popular, because his popularity has engendered the habit of grumbling. Because they hope to receive some further advantage, certain interests in this country have continued to grumble and ask for more. The last speech was of that nature. The Minister of Agriculture shares with the Minister of Labour the opportunity of dispensing millions of money. The Minister of Labour, however, must have some regard to the need of the individual, whereas from the Minister of Agriculture the individual gets the money whether he is in need or not. When I sit here week after week and hear proposal after porposal for putting fresh burdens on the State or the consumer I frequently wonder where the thing is going to stop. Reference has been made to what, I think, was described as need for more generosity on the part of the State in helping this admittedly important industry. Through relief from central and local taxation and by direct assistance over £45,000,000 a year is being given to this industry, or something like 10s. per week for every person gainfully employed in that industry. That has to be provided in the main by the 93 per cent. of the population who are not employed in agriculture.
We are told that the objective aimed at is an increase in agricultural prices. That may be desirable and necessary, but we have to weigh against it the social
effects of such a policy, because there is a social cost to be taken into consideration. Any further decline in the standard of living, or anything which might retard an advance in that standard has to be taken into consideration and balanced against the advantages of giving increased prices to certain interests. I am prompted to that observation because I recently read a League of Nations publication dealing with nutrition and public health in which I saw with astonishment this statement:
In Great Britain between 10 and 25 per cent. of the population cannot afford a diet of the type and quality now known to be essential as a safeguard against malnutrition and disease.
If that be the case, I think we should view with serious concern any proposal which is put forward to increase prices; when approximately one quarter of the population is unable to afford food which contains the necessary minerals and vitamins. This is particularly important with regard to vegetables and fruit, because we have a tariff applied at present to vegetables and fresh fruit. I think I am right in saying that there is not a medical officer of health in Great Britain who has not made observations on these two very important foodstuffs. One and all would agree that in an industrialised country such as this it is absolutely essential that there shall be available as cheaply as possible plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables. Much has been written about that, and it is an argument which no one can contest. We have to consider very carefully where the balance should be struck if we aim at self-sufficiency. We also have to consider what is to be our relationship with those countries which in the past have sent foodstuffs here. If we succeed in the desire which has been expressed by certain hon. Members opposite, it seems to me that we shall have to decant a considerable proportion of our industrial workers into agricultural pursuits, which are paid at less than half the wages paid to them at the present time. That will entail fresh difficulties every year. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) touched upon the question of sugar, as also did the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), and I will only say that one of the most striking things which the report
of the Committee contains is the passage in which it is said:
We are unable to find positive justification for the expenditure of the sum of several millions per annum on an industry which has no prospect of ever becoming self-supporting and on the production of a crop which, without that assistance, would at present sugar prices be practically valueless.
I think that is one of the most remarkable things in the report, and I fail to understand why the Minister, apparently, has bent to the pressure of vested interests, and has made the proposals of which we know.
Last Friday there was a Debate on the bacon industry and I do not want to deal with that subject in detail now. But in spite of what has been said, I claim that the restriction of imports has created a rise in prices, and that that rise has had a detrimental effect. It has been measured by the organisation of which I am a member and which I have occasion to represent here—the Co-operative movement. From my personal observation I can say that in the last two years there has been a considerable change in the breakfast tables of many people I know; and the change has been marked by the departure of bacon and eggs, and the substitution of other and cheaper foodstuffs. I think that is not a desirable thing, because even that entails some unemployment. We have to remember the people in this country who have in the past found employment in the curing industry. If there is any diminution in the consumption of bacon because of high prices, it will definitely have the effect of creating unemployment.
The same observation might be made with regard to potatoes. The frost in the late spring admittedly had its effect, and I agree that the Minister did relieve to some extent the restriction upon imports—but that was not done speedily enough to prevent consumers having to pay considerably more for their potatoes. The advantage always seems to go to the producers or the middle-men, and never to the consumer. I suggest that in future there should be a larger measure of cover in anticipation of such events than there has been in the past, so that there will not be a repetition of this increase of prices. The last speaker made reference to the Wheat Act. I can well appreciate how much he is pleased with the Wheat
Act and the method by which it works. That is the outstanding example of public assistance without publicity, and it is not difficult to see why some hon. Members think it desirable that this should be extended to other commodities. Here the burden is definitely placed upon the consumers, and it amounts to between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 a year. We are not prepared to agree to any extension of this principle, because the farmer collects his payment from the Wheat Commission, there are not many questions about it in Parliament to the Minister of Agriculture, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer need not even provide for it in his Budget. This may be most desirable from the farmer's point of view and an excellent expedient to adopt, but I do not think the method should be countenanced by this House.
I would refer also to the question of milk prices, and I would ask the Minister seriously to consider whether he cannot use his influence with the powers-that-be in the milk industry to see that prices are reduced. The scheme for the supply of milk to school children has been an undoubted success. It is altogether a commendable thing, and the Minister deserves due credit for the part he has taken in bringing it about. It is because of that scheme's success that I believe a reduction in the price of milk would ensure a similar result, if directed to those who are at present excluded from the benefits of cheaper milk. The real problem to be faced is that any bigger sale of liquid milk can only be achieved by a decrease in the price. I think that if that is achieved there will be an increase in the consumption.
That is all I want to say about points already touched upon. But in the Appropriation Bill I notice that the question of land settlement is mentioned, and land settlement is perhaps linked with the old-fashioned idea already referred to, that every man should be a law unto himself. I would like the Minister seriously to consider the possibility of securing greater co-operation among the beneficiaries of land settlement schemes. Agricultural co-operative societies throughout the world are showing quite clearly the benefits of co-operation among them, and I think everybody will admit that in Scotland similar advantages have accrued. These benefits can be extended, and I plead
with the Minister that he will do what he can to foster the spirit of co-operation among those who go on the land. Even among farmers co-operation might be encouraged to a greater extent than at present. That would perhaps obviate some of the State machinery that is being introduced at the present time. Voluntary co-operation among farmers might produce equally good results.
There is also the question of land drainage. At the present time land drainage is the responsibility of the tenant, and I am informed that tenants are not acting up to their responsibilities in that direction. Would it not be possible for the Minister to do something whereby the drainage of the country should be supervised and attended to by somebody other than the individual tenant? This matter is one of importance to people other than the tenants of land, and we should not allow private control of land for the time being to result in land getting into a bad state. There is also the question of electricity. Could we not possibly see an extension of the electricity grid scheme to make electricity more readily available for the farmer, so that he could make use of it to a greater extent than at present? I believe that there is a great scope for cheap electricity on farms and that this would be a tremendous help to farmers in their work, in addition to making for greater cleanliness. If farmers could get more closely into touch with the electricity grid scheme now functioning in Scotland, with special rates applying it would be a good thing for an industry which has not been able to rationalise itself up to the present.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am afraid I cannot concur in what has been said by the last speaker. Since 1923 we as a party have had protection held out before us, and we were promised protection before the last election—but we have never got it, except in the one industry of market gardening. The vegetable producers of Cornwall and the South got protection. If they had not they would have been smothered by the vegetables of North Africa, which is a huge market garden. Our market gardeners could not have carried on but for protection. The President of the Board of Trade could speak for that industry because
he represents one of the constituencies that greatly benefited by it. I wish he could have used his influence to see that the agricultural industry had got protection as the market gardening industry got it. I believe that if it had, there would not have been these subsidies and boards. Why should there be these expensive boards unloaded on the necks of the poor producers? Take poultry, which is a growing industry. We heard from the Minister of Agriculture the other day that the Poles could import as many eggs as they liked in this country until we had a marketing board. Why should it be the price of getting protection that this costly machinery should be put round the neck of the industry, with all the officials, and that if the producers will not accept the Board they will be smothered out with Polish eggs and, I suppose, Chinese liquid eggs? Why not give them reasonable protection? No one wants Polish eggs. The grocer often tries to palm you off with Polish eggs when you ask for fresh eggs, and they are nothing like as good as our eggs. Why should there not be a proper system of Protection instead of quotas and subsidies and all these roundabout ways of helping the producer? The Prime Minister has said that he has come to the conclusion that Protection is best, but he is late in carrying it out. Will the people believe in this Government this time when they can say that at the last election your supporters promised protection but that they have never had it.
I come to the Milk Marketing Board. It is one of the most extraordinary schemes I have ever seen and it is working great hardship in innumerable cases of small producers with a few cows who have from time immemorial carried their own milk from door to door. I used to see such men in my own native village—farmers who sold direct to the customers. I have always maintained that the man who can bring the consumer and the producer face to face will solve the problem of civilisation. There is no distribution cost at all in such cases, but the little producer, instead of being encouraged, is being exterminated. Fivepence per gallon was and is levied on him. I could not believe it when I first heard about it. To take the earnings of one man and give them to another
man is theft in common law, but if you do it by Act of Parliament it is Communism. I say that the Milk Marketing Board is founded on a basis of Communism. I did not realise that it was being done at the time when the Marketing Bill was being passed because one does not expect Communism to be introduced by a Government which is largely supported by the Conservative party. We have heard a great deal about keeping the Socialists out, but no Socialist Government would ever have dared to pass such a Measure. The first I heard of marketing boards was from the lips of the late Mr. Wise, who used to speak strongly in the former Parliament in favour of Soviet Russia.
I can give innumerable instances of the earnings of these small direct milk sellers being taken, even as much as £9 per cow per annum. It is almost the value of the cow. The money is going to support the Milk Board and also to pay huge sums for advertisements that are being put in the Press. I have never seen anything more ridiculous, but it has had its effect, for the Milk Board has had a good Press. Tens of thousands of pounds have been spent on this advertising, and it is coming out of the pockets of these poor farmers. Who in his sane moments ever wanted to advertise milk? We have all lived on it the first year of our life. It is not like some other liquids that require a taste to be acquired. This was all evidently cunningly arranged by the crafty men who put the scheme across the Government, because the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to a question I put to him, said that it was all in the Act of Parliament. So they were from the beginning making preparations to spend this money wrung out of the poor producers to get a good Press.
I object to these marketing boards very much, but the disease seems to be spreading. The same thing is now being proposed for cotton. The insolvent mills are to unload their debts on to the backs of the survivors. It is a most dangerous method of procedure. I shall be told that the milk producers voted for the scheme. Of course they did. They did not know any better, and they did not realise that the Government were going to let them down. The voting was on the basis of one cow one vote to some
extent. The man who had a large number of cows was the man who wanted the small producer to be levied on and driven out of business. What will be the result when they are all driven out of business? Where will the levy come from? Many small producers are going out of existence and their cows are being bought by the big producers.
Of course the large farmers are enthusiastically in favour of the scheme, because they are profiting very much by it. They are getting far more than they expected, but it is at the expense of the others. It is easy to make one section of an industry in a profitable condition if you draw the blood out of the other section of the industry. There are 1,000 decent Scottish people owning cows who have been made criminals and fined enormous fines by this precious Milk Board, who are the judges in their own courts, impose fines, and collect the money for their own purposes. The Star Chamber is a back number compared with it. I have some photographs here of one of the most decent families which ever inhabited Scotland consisting of a father, mother and 10 children—thrifty, healthy, hearty people. They had 20 cows, and they made £4 a week. They could not, however, pay a levy amounting to more than the rent to the Milk Marketing Board, and so they were fined and fined. Their cattle were seized and put up for sale, but nobody in the neighbourhood would dream of buying them, for they were too ashamed. What did the Board do? They came in the dark hours of the morning after the attempt to sell, took the cattle out of their byres, and sent them to the other side of Scotland and sold them. One of the officials told this fine man and his family that they could go on public assistance.
What right has any Government or board economically to assassinate even one individual? The answer, they say, is that if they did not do it there would be chaos and the whole scheme would be ruined. It is no answer, if you kill a man, to say that everybody must die, and that you were only anticipating the event. I had a letter to-day about a man who, after 12 years' experience saved £900, which four years ago was sunk in a small dairy farm near a town with a rental of £450 and accommodation for 50 cows. He has continued to supply three retail shops and has given them an excellent service.
For the first 13 months the levy exceeded his rent. He has had no direct service of any kind from the Board. He now finds the burden greater than he can bear and he sees nothing for it but to be forced out of business. The attitude of the man is now one of amazement and blank despair. The letter continues:
The later milk supply of the shops would naturally fall to be obtained from some area which, according to Mr. Elliot, through cleanliness and the motor lorry is now better adapted to furnish the milk supply of the East. Neither the shopkeepers nor the customers, the writer is informed, desire milk which has travelled a long way, being then bulked, and thereafter pasteurised.
The whole milk business is being concentrated into a few hands. I have the case of six smallholders who are giving up their cows because after paying their levies they were not drawing half the money they used to do. Yet we are talking about setting people on the land. All this is being done for the benefit of the big creameries and the combines. The United Dairies and the co-operative societies, I suppose, are to be allowed to corner the food supplies of the people. It is a shocking state of affairs. It is infinitely better that the customer should be as near to the cow as possible. I know a lot of small egg farmers on the Cowal side of the Clyde who go from door to door selling their eggs. Men like retired police pensioners, retired teachers, civil servants and others take one of the big houses that are now going cheaply, and sell their eggs in the town, getting the retail price for them. All that is to stop for they are now to pack up their eggs in boxes and send them across the Firth of Clyde and then anybody's eggs are to be sent back to the grocers to sell to their customers. They too will be levied on heavily. What a preposterous proposal.
A great many people are going to make their living out of these organisations. We hear about nothing but organisations. There are a lot of people who want to organise other people and make a comfortable subsistence out of it. We used to hear about rationalisation, but the new word which is taking its place is "planning." When I first became a member of Glasgow Corporation men used to come to me and ask whether I could get them a situation. With a well simulated interest, I used to ask them what job they would like, and they usually said
they would like the job of a "watchman." They always wanted to be watchmen so that they could watch the rest working That is what these boards are—just watchmen. The thing is wholly unsound. If people suffer, let them suffer from natural economic laws and not from laws imposed by the Government. In my own constituency I have a large number of farmers who are doing extraordinarily well and geting 9d. for what they used to get 3½d. for, and they say they are better off, but I warn them that it cannot last. A thing that is based on fundamental injustice cannot last. You cannot debate with a man as to his profits. I know they would have little sympathy for the small men who are suffering on their behalf under this scheme. Here is a poor woman who writes to me:
I have 10 to 12 cows milking and I retail the milk myself, my husband not being able to do so.… I have to work very hard retailing milk twice daily seven days a week.… Now the Milk Board comes in and says what I have to do with my hard earnings. When the Milk Board started I never signed any papers, nor did I register.… They fined me 10s. for not being registered. Now they have fined me £5 and now another fine comes in—£50. Surely we are living in terrible times when people can just come and take away one's livelihood; that's all we depend upon. If they deprive me of my own and my living I can do no other than go on the parish which I would feel very much.
What a tragedy! It condemns the whole system. I had another man in the Kyles of Bute who, with his father and grandfather, had supplied the village for over 100 years. He told me that they were levying 5d. a gallon on him. I could not believe him, and I wondered what was wrong with the world. I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture about it, and he replied, that motor lorries and clean milk could be brought from Wigtownshire to undersell him. It is monstrous that this sort of thing should happen. I found that the same thing was going on all over the country, that smallholders were being absolutely wiped out under this system; and it will go on more and more, and when there is nothing to levy on, I suppose the Minister will come down to the House of Commons and ask for a sum of money compared with which the beet sugar subsidy will be a mere fleabite. I can quite understand our saying to foreign countries, "You have a lower standard; you are not our people, and
we will keep the work among our own people," but I cannot understand allowing one section of our own people to prosper in this way at the expense of another section.
It is no use saying that the vote was democratic. That was a trick, to vote about pooling earnings in the industry. Why, even the Cabinet could not pool their salaries for very long. Fancy, for instance, the members of the Bar being called together and deciding that all earnings were to be pooled. It would have been very hard lines on the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, and others who drew when in practice enormous incomes, but no doubt you would get a majority vote for the proposal, because all the unsuccessful members of the profession would naturally support it. My man from the Kyles of Bute told me that he understood it would only cost a halfpenny a gallon. That was the general view that was put about, and he never thought he was going to be asked 5d. a gallon. The woman whom I have mentioned did not vote at all. These small people are not very quick on the uptake, and when a troublesome problem comes before them, they hide their heads, like an ostrich. When the voting papers came to them, they said that they would have "nothing to do with them," and they threw them away. A man did that the other day with a writ. When they took the vote, they got a majority, of course, of those who were going to benefit under the scheme, and that was the 96 per cent. who voted in favour of it. Those who knew they were going to milk the other milk producers gave them a majority vote.
The rumour was allowed to go about, that it would only cost a halfpenny a gallon. I know sufficient about company law to know that if a man had read a company prospectus and sent in an application form under the belief that he was only going to have to pay a halfpenny, and then found he was asked for 5d., he would be released from his subscription and get out of it, and if it could be traced to those responsible for spreading the rumour, they would have found themselves in trouble.

Mr. ORR-EWING: Is the hon. and learned Member suggesting that official papers were circulated before the scheme came into force, and before the vote was
asked for, which were deliberately misleading?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: No. They were much too clever for that. On this point the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
I am aware of the allegations that some of the producers did not fully understand the provisions of the scheme and were misled by statements and estimates made about the time of the poll. I am satisfied, however, that it was never concealed that the effect of a general pooling scheme of this kind would be to establish a relative uniformity of prices amongst all the registered producers; and, in view of the number of unknown factors to be taken into account it was clearly impracticable to say definitely what the amount of the producers' contribution to the cost of operating the scheme would be. It is possible that some producers may have been under the impression that the levy would be required solely to meet administrative costs whereas the greater part of it is required for the purpose of equalisation of the returns from the liquid and manufacturing markets.
If he had said that the greater part was required for the Communistic purpose of distributing the earnings of those who were making money among those who were not, it would have been nearer the mark and they would not have got the vote. They were much too astute to state anything that could be caught hold of, but they got the benefit of the misunderstanding that was in these people's minds when they did not vote against the scheme. It is true that there is an investigation committee, but such a committee cannot do anything to mitigate the fundamental principle, the Communistic principle, on which all these schemes are based, which is that they are going to take one man's earnings and hand them over to another man. The whole scheme is an outrage. It is a dreadful thing that it should be passed by a Conservative Government. No Socialist Government could ever have passed such a Measure, because the whole of the Conservative party would have defended us against it.

Mr. ELLIOT: My hon. and learned Friend must not be under any misapprehension. A poll can be taken on the scheme at any time, and a poll is being taken on the scheme now. If it is true, as he says, that all these dreadful evils have resulted, the people at any rate will know about the scheme now, and the poll will disclose it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: But the first poll did not say that it was for a certain section of the industry to be entitled to put their hands into the pockets of another section in the industry.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure my hon. and learned Friend does not wish to misrepresent the state of affairs. The poll is being taken as to whether the scheme should continue or not, and on that poll surely everyone who is suffering, as he most dramatically explained, will vote against the scheme, and then we shall know.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: But suppose the sufferers are in a hopeless minority. Take the instance I gave. The Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor would have been in a hopeless minority among the members of the Bar as to how their incomes were to be divided. The only difference there would be that the members of the Bar would be dividing up the big incomes, whereas under this scheme we are taking a poll as to whether the small men are to be exterminated by the big men. It is wrong to have a poll. The initial poll was wrong, and another poll is no better, because it is taking a poll as to whether a man by a vote can be deprived of his livelihood by a majority of his fellows. That is wrong and unconstitutional, and I do not think you will find it done in any country in Europe, not even under a dictator. They would not allow their people to vote away one another's livelihood in this way. Cyrus the Great, the Persian, tried to do what the Milk Board is trying to do. He knew that justice was the foundation of the State, and he tried to give everybody what he thought fitted them, but he soon found that justice could only be done by giving each man, not what fitted him, but what belonged to him. The Milk Board is trying to take away from a man what belongs to him and to give it to somebody else. These cows are a man's own cows, and what right has anybody else to go and milk them and seize and sell them.
It is a shocking business, and I do not think the House of Commons ever realised what was being done when they agreed to the scheme. I do not think Members knew that they were being made Communists, because that is what they have been made. This is undoubtedly
a Communist scheme, and it does not make it more respectable to take a poll. Of course, this vote that is being taken has been very quickly brought up, before the thing gets too hot, and I should not be at all surprised if the vote continued the scheme, because all the men who are thriving under it will vote for it. Some of them must, on balance, be getting more for their milk than they otherwise would have got. I say that this is attempting to pull down the pillars of the temple of civilisation. It is a most dangerous doctrine to introduce into our commercial life, and it will not stop at this. It will be used everywhere to found wrongs upon, and it will be attempted to be justified by saying, "Let us have a poll." I have an article here by Lord Dorchester:
The Milk Board was created with the avowed object of obtaining for milk producers a fair return for their labour, risk and invested capital. After two years' working we have arrived at the following results (I speak for myself and I believe for all the farmers in this neighbourhood). The former small profit of one section of farmers has now disappeared entirely owing to the ruinous levies imposed by the Board. These levies are being used to increase the ruinous prices which milk producers in less favoured areas were receiving before the advent of the Board. So we have class A, those who formerly made a small profit, placed on a losing basis in order to postpone (for nothing can prevent) the ruin of class B—those who were being exploited by the purchases of cheap liquid milk before the advent of the Board.
Why cannot the Government turn their backs on this ruinous, wrongful and dishonest policy—poll or no poll—and give us good, sound Protection? I saw that the Minister of Agriculture spoke about 100 per cent. being not enough. What is wrong with putting 200 per cent. on all the by-products of milk—cheese and all the other manufactured products? In that way he would enable our dairies and creameries to become profitable. Many of them were bought at high prices by the Milk Board, after arbitration it is true, but anyone who knows anything about arbitration knows what happens when there is the boundless pocket of the Government to be searched. Let us make this industry prosperous by the legitimate means which are part of our marketing policy, but let us get rid of this horrible Communistic doctrine which has crept into the policy and practice of what,
in other respects, I consider the best Government that I have seen in all my long experience.

7.48 p.m.

Major BRAITHWAITE: I do not wish to detain the House for many moments in view of the limited time at our disposal, nor do I intend to follow the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) in his remarks about the Milk Board. This will probably be one of the last Debates on agriculture in the lifetime of this Parliament, and therefore it is becoming in us to pay our just tribute to the activities of the Government on behalf of this great industry. I am certain that agriculture feels that it has had a sympathetic and a generous Government, and that the right hon. Gentleman has been a capable and energetic Minister of Agriculture, working to equip the industry with some of the machinery which is vitally necessary for its future stability. Unlike the last speaker I do not feel that the milk scheme is an absolute swindle and a disgrace, because I think that eventually it will turn out to be one of the finest pieces of legislation the Government have passed. There are many defects in it, but they can be remedied. The matter is entirely in the hands of the farmers, and if they cannot make use of the machinery provided they have no right to be in business, and other people should furnish the necessary business acumen to put their industry on a proper basis.
The Minister has laid the foundations, and it is for the farmers to build up a satisfactory scheme. With a consumption of liquid milk amounting to 48,000,000 gallons a month, and with farmers producing 90,000,000 gallons a month, it would be quite a practical proposition—if there were no milk scheme—for that milk to be put out in the country at 3d. a gallon; so that if farmers are getting somewhere about 10d. a gallon, which is the average for the scheme, although they are paying a levy of 4d., on the average, they are in pocket under the milk scheme. There are other ways of dealing with this large supply of milk, and I am glad to see that the Minister is tackling the question of the large quantities of butter and cheese which come into this country from abroad. It
is vitally necessary to agriculture that more of this butter and cheese should be made at home and less bought from abroad.
The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) referred to malting barley. The other day I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was satisfied that the brewers had carried out satisfactorily their gentlemen's agreement with him when he reduced the Beer Duty. He said that he was satisfied as regards the quantity, but that he had made no arrangements with respect to price. It is no good the brewers buying twice as much barley if they pay only half the price they are supposed to pay. The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon asked the Chancellor to give the prices paid by the brewers for malting barley, but he replied that he was not in a position to do so. I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it is not possible for him to have a register kept of the sales of barley to the malting and brewing trades. Such a register would be of immense help in assessing the value of the brewing industry to arable farmers.
There is only one way in which this matter can be dealt with effectively. I do not know whether I am at liberty, under the rules of Order, to refer to it in this Debate, but I should like to see a proper duty put on malting barley coming into the country, and the brewers given a drawback from that duty if they had paid the adequate and proper price for a certain quantity of home-grown malting barley—a scheme somewhat similar to the wheat scheme, which would give our farmers a satisfactory price. In my own division malting barley is a very important crop in the arable rotation, and unless an adequate price can be obtained for good barleys it is impossible for farmers there to make a reasonable profit. I hope the Minister will do all he can to help farmers in that direction.
Then I should like to know what has been the outcome of all the suggestions which have been put forward for supplying His Majesty's Forces with home-produced meat. That idea seems to have dropped out of the mind of this House, and out of the programme of agriculture. We give large subsidies to meat producers, but are not prepared to see that our own Forces are supplied with meat produced at home. We were told some
18 months ago that it would be too expensive to give the troops home-produced meat, but when we are dealing with subsidies amounting to millions a minor consideration of a few hundred thousand pounds could surely be waived. The other day I visited five schools to see how the scheme for supplying milk to school children was working, and I was shocked to find that in spite of the fact that there is a glut of liquid milk the teachers were insisting on the pupils having tinned milk. I do not know what control the Minister of Agriculture has in this matter, perhaps it is one for the Board of Education—

Mr. ELLIOT: If my memory serves me right, I think the grant which is given to the scheme is available only for the supply of liquid milk, and therefore I think there must have been some difficulty or some mistake in the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, because I am almost sure that the grant provides for liquid milk.

Major BRAITHWAITE: That was my impression, and that was why I was so surprised to find the teachers giving tinned milk. I asked one of them, "Why do you do this when you know perfectly well that this scheme, besides being intended to benefit the children, is designed to help farmers?" The reply was, "Oh, it is so handy to warm it up in the tins." Who wants the milk warmed up in the summer-time? It is a monstrous suggestion. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will ask the Board of Education to take steps to see that this state of affairs is put right. I would like the Minister to appreciate that the farmers are behind him. They value him as a trusted adviser who has given them valuable help and valuable legislation, and he will go down to history as the best Minister of Agriculture and one who has tried to put farming on a sound and business-like basis. Although one or two of his schemes have not materialised in the way he would wish, in the main agriculture is definitely better off than when this Government took office. I can only say that in my constituency the Wheat Act alone saves hundreds of agricultural labourers from prolonged periods of unemployment, and I am certain that when the other schemes get working there will be more employment.
I have one final point to put about meat. I know that the Minister has been experiencing difficulty in coming to an arrangement with the Argentine about imports of meat, and that that has proved a stumbling-block to some of his other arrangements. Is it not possible to allow a certain number of store cattle to come from the Argentine in the place of meat, now that we are not taking from Canada the number of store cattle we used to take? That might be at the same time a real help to our farmers and assist to bring the Argentine into line in connection with the other schemes.

Mr. ELLIOT: We could not do that on veterinary grounds, owing to foot-and-mouth disease.

Major BRAITHWAITE: I thank the Minister for dealing with that point so promptly. I only put it forward as a suggestion in the hope that it might assist us to get the long-term policy a little earlier. Again I thank the Government, and the Minister in particular. From the point of view of my constituency there has been real and definite progress in agriculture, and in the next Parliament, where this National Government will have an even greater majority, we shall, I hope, carry on with the beneficial legislation which we have already begun to put into operation.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I have listened to nearly all the speeches in this Debate so far, and have found them very interesting, and I am certain that the Minister of Agriculture will not have very much reason for complaint about them. Nearly all the agricultural Members have thanked him for what he has done, but all of them have been asking for more. It is generally assumed that we on these benches, who in the main represent industrial constituencies, are not very much interested in agriculture, but that is an entirely wrong assumption. There are quite a number of us who are very much interested in the agricultural problem. We know that every community must have had its basis in agricultural economy, and that if the industrial civilisation of these islands does not rest on an agricultural economy at home it rests on an agricultural economy somewhere else, either on the cattle ranches of
the Argentine or the sheep farms of Australia, or the prairies of Canada. Recognising that fact, all on these benches realise that the agricultural problem is one of very great importance.
We have all been very much interested in the policy of the present Minister of Agriculture as it has developed stage by stage. Some four years ago, when he took up his present office, he told us over and over again that there was a threatened breakdown in the agricultural economy of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) gave the House what he described as a bird's-eye survey of the various measures which the right hon. Gentleman has employed to deal with this threatened breakdown of the agricultural economy of this country. We were reminded, to begin with, that the cereal growers were in difficulties, later on the dairy farmers, and that then the fat stock raisers were in difficulties, to say nothing of the pig raisers, the poultry farmers and other sections of the agricultural industry.
In view of those facts and that situation, the Minister and the Government embarked on a series of experiments. As I understand the policy, in the initial stages the Minister has very largely used the method of subsidies to deal with the immediate problem, while what he calls the long-term policy is being formulated, fashioned and applied. He has worked on certain well-recognised principles, about which he himself has made quite a number of speeches, elucidating and explaining them and calling our attention to the necessity for them to be applied. He told us that we had passed into a phase in regard to the agricultural industry—and I suppose it would to some degree apply to industry generally—where he had to deal with what he called the economics of glut, and therefore his policy has been based on means of restriction or limiting output.
I gather from hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies that there has been no marked success in the Minister's deliberate attempt to raise prices. That, of course, still leads to innumerable complaints being made and suggestions for other methods to be employed. I think that it is only perhaps twice that I have ventured to intervene In these agricultural debates but once before I made the remark—and I intend to make it
again to-night—that it seems to me a most tragic thing that in the present condition of civilisation as we know it at the moment, it should be necessary—even agreeing for the moment that it is under existing circumstances necessary—for a Government to embark on policies such as those with which the right hon. Gentleman's name is associated, because when one thinks of the long history of agriculture and of the development of the arts of agriculture over long periods of time, one cannot help but recall what a tremendous effort man has had to make before he could gain complete control of his food supplies. Food supplies for long periods of human history were insecure and very difficult to obtain, and only as the result of many centuries of effort and the development of an elaborate agricultural technique has it been possible for mankind to gain almost complete control over its food supplies.
I must not weary the House, and perhaps it would not be interested if I attempted to describe in detail the development of the art of agriculture from the hoe to the plough and then on to the spade. We have seen in recent years commerce cultivation, and that, taking place in certain parts of the world, has had a considerable effect on the agricultural industry in this country. Supplementing all that process of development there has been in recent times the development of plant breeding and of animal breeding. And now we have reached the stage where I shall not be exaggerating if I say that mankind has achieved more or less complete control of its food supplies. Yet now that this stage has been reached, we actually have to deal with the situation resulting out of that long effort through centuries of time by elaborating forms of restriction for food production at a time when there are still plenty of people without sufficient food of the kind that agriculture is primarily responsible for producing.
I have listened this afternoon to speeches which have lamented the fact that the price-raising policy of the Minister has not succeeded and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who was sitting behind me earlier in the day, called my attention to a recent publication in which it was clearly pointed out that in this country when wages—that is to say, the wages of the masses of the people—are relatively high, the price of
fat stock rises. There is a relationship between the price which the farmer gets for his fat stock and the general wage rates prevailing in the country at a given moment, and there is a table in that publication in which there is given the annual meat consumption of various sections of the population. The figures are as follows: For labourers 85 lbs. per annum, for artisans 107, for the lower middle class 122, and for the upper class 300 lbs.

Mr. ELLIOT: A pound of beef per day?

Mr. BROWN: That is the classification given in the book I am quoting. The absolute correctness of the figures will not alter my argument. The book is a recent one by Lord Astor and someone else dealing with the planning of agriculture. Whether the facts are correct or not does not alter my argument, which is that if you want to raise the price of particular commodities you have only to increase the demand for them. I want to suggest to hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies, and indeed constituencies of other kinds, that if you want really to raise the prices of agricultural products—I do not say that this would apply to all of them: I can see the difficulties in regard to milk, for instance—if we could have a general campaign for the raising of wages all round, with an increased demand for some of these agricultural products, we should get that rise in price which the Minister has failed to obtain by any of the methods which he has hitherto employed. I just make that suggestion to those who have been complaining this afternoon in regard to that side of the Minister's policy being something of a failure, and I suggest that we might solicit their support when we suggest that better wages should be paid to the great masses of the working classes. It would help in some degree towards a, solution of this agricultural problem.
But the great indictment of the Minister's policy is that, after all, nothing that he is doing is likely to bring back plenty, which is available within the reach of the poverty that needs it. It does not matter very much how much further he goes on the present lines; I do not think that he will achieve that object. He will not do it because the methods which he is pursuing are fundamentally wrong. The more I listen to these Debates on agricultural problems the
more and more I am confirmed in the Socialist faith which those of us on these benches hold. It may be that just because we do not look at these problems from a narrow national point of view or even an Empire point of view, we see the futility of many of the policies which are being pursued by the right hon. Gentleman. We watch the Minister's experiments with interest and we become more and more certain, with all the experiments that he carries out, that something far more drastic than anything he has yet suggested or hon. Members have yet contemplated will have to be done before agriculture in this country is placed on a sure and certain foundation.
We recognise the importance of the agriculture of this country. We recognise that all social systems rest upon an agricultural economy. You must feed your people. We recognise the supreme importance of agriculture in Britain, but we do not think that the method which the Minister is employing, of propping and shoring it up with subsidies, can solve the problem that needs to be solved. I think I am speaking for the rest of my colleagues as well as for myself.
In order to carry on his policy, the Minister has had to elaborate machinery like the machinery of the Marketing Board. I came in at the conclusion of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), and I gathered that he was saying something critical of the Milk Marketing Board. I do not know whether hon. Members for agricultural constituencies receive very much criticism about the Milk Marketing Board. Although my constituency is mainly industrial, I see from time to time many farmers who complain bitterly about actions of the Board which are irritating and penalising in all kinds of ways. Some people might say they complain unjustly because they voluntarily entered into the scheme, but I am certain that in many sections of the farming community there is a great deal of criticism about those irritating activities, and particularly about the penalties to which the smaller producer-retailers are subjected. Some of the fines seem very unreasonable.
Some supporters of the Government, especially those who have made speeches to-day hoping that nothing untoward will happen to the Milk Marketing Board, are likely to have a rude awakening to judge
from the irritating effects which are being produced in large sections of the agricultural community. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that he and the party did not wish to see the Milk Marketing Board go, because the situation without it would be worse than the situation at this moment. He wanted to see it reformed, and functioning more effectively and efficiently. I echo what he said, and I do not want to be understood as suggesting that the Minister of Agriculture, facing the situation as he did, was wrong in making experiments. I have watched those experiments with great interest. He will be aware from to-day's Debate that many Members from agricultural constituencies are asking for further developments of the Minister's policy on the various lines to which reference has been made.
We have repeatedly been accused of bribing the electors in our political propaganda. It has been suggested more than once by Members of the Conservative party that when electioneering we have suggested that if we were returned to office we would give better pensions, pensions at an earlier age or higher rates of unemployment benefit, and that has over and over again been described as a sort of political bribery to obtain the votes of the electors. No Member for an agricultural constituency ought ever again to bring such a charge against Members of the Labour party, because no Government in the history of the country have done more political bribery—I use the word in the political sense—of their political friends than the Government who now occupy that Bench, and the leading spirit in that direction has been the Minister of Agriculture. He may resent my describing it as political bribery, but I am making an analogy with the criticism which is so often brought against us, in our propaganda to improve the social services of the country. It does not lie in the mouth of any supporter of the National Government who supports the policy of subsidy and the general policy of the Minister of Agriculture, ever again to accuse us of political bribery.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. CHRISTIE: I would join with hon. Members who made an appeal to the Minister on behalf of barley growers. There are many areas of light land in Norfolk and Suffolk where barley is the
only cereal crop, and the advantages of the Wheat Act have passed these areas by. In 1922 the then Minister of Agriculture promised the growers a tax on malting barley. That was 13 years ago. He appointed a committee to go into the question of how best the duty could be levied. The committee was under the then Member for East Norfolk, and the committee produced a plan, but the unfortunate farmer has had to wait during all this period. The only advance that has been made up to the present time is that some such scheme is being considered by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I know it is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to interfere when a matter like that is sub judice, but I am sure that he will realise as well as I do that in a week or two the barley will be cut and threshed and be coming on the market. If anything could be done to speed up that Committee to give some decision before the barley is marketed, such action would be very much appreciated by the barley growers in the Eastern Counties.
May I reinforce what hon. Members have said about eggs? I feel very strongly about that question. Hen and egg production is typically the metier of the farmer and the smallholder, and the Minister knows the pitiable position in which those unfortunate producers are, and how many of them have lost all their money. I feel the position particularly, because in Norfolk we were asked some time ago to try to assist the cottage holders and the forest holders to make the best use of the land which had been allotted to them by the Forestry Commission. We investigated the soil, and found that poultry was probably the best product that they could go in for. These men have followed our advice, and we have therefore the position that the forest holders, who are presumably servants of the Government, are advised by the country agricultural authorities to go in for a certain crop, but the Government make no effort—or rather, I will not say they make no effort, but their efforts are not successful—to allow these people who have followed the advice of their own instructors to make a decent living by doing so. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember that these poor people are having a very bad time, and
that something ought to be done to stop this terrific importation of foreign eggs.
The Minister has been criticised by many people for different things that he has done, but I think the really important thing is that now, for one reason or another, practically every form of foodstuff which we produce in this country can be landed on our shores at a price lower than the cost of production at home. That applies whether one takes cereals, or meat, or dairy produce, soft or hard fruit, or eggs. If the public generally have realised that tremendous fact, which is something quite new in our history, and if the Government have got the public used to the different forms of protection which they have applied to foodstuffs—in some cases tariffs, in others levies, in others licences, and so on—that is a tremendous step towards dealing successfully with our problems. People having now realised what the problem is, and having had experience of the different methods of coping with it, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to go ahead with his permanent policy for the industry, and will eventually succeed in making England the one place where horticulture and agriculture are completely successful.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: We have had a long and interesting Debate, one of the main features of which, as I think we shall all agree, has been the growing interest which the Labour party shows in agriculture and in agricultural problems—a growing and well-informed interest, because I think all of us throughout this Parliament have watched with increasing interest the development of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), both as a Parliamentarian and as an agriculturist. The way in which he has been able to grasp what must to him have been an unfamiliar subject has been an example of practical democracy which could scarcely be bettered.
The fact that the Labour party take such a keen interest in these matters has, of course, led to the Debate having a very wide range. When I look at the Consolidated Fund Bill, and realise that technically I ought not to discuss anything which could not be brought about without legislation, I fear I should be out of order in replying to a great part of what has been said to-day. With
regard, for instance, to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) as to the great necessity for an entire reform of the system of distribution in this country, I do not think the House has given me sufficient powers to enable me to bring that about without approaching the House again, and, therefore, much as I should like to go into that matter with the hon. Member, I am afraid I cannot do so to-day.
The hon. Member for Don Valley confined himself as closely as one could to the actual problems which are properly under review this evening. He said that a number of committees had been appointed and a number of reports had been made, and he asked me whether I could indicate what action had been taken upon them. I do not think anyone will deny that action upon those reports and recommendations has been so thorough and so vigorous as to draw down upon my head from many parts of the House, including the hon. Member's own side, the criticism that this action has been too fast and too furious, and that a little time should be allowed for rest and refreshment. When he asks, with regard to the Wheat Act, whether the subsidy has encouraged mechanisation, whether I have made any examination to see if the price of 45s. is a fair price, and so on, I would draw his attention to Command Paper 4932, published in June of this year, which contains a report, signed by, among others, a respected former Member of this House, Mr. Walter Smith, on that very point. There, after a full review, it is recommended that the standard price of 45s. should be maintained, and I may say that the Government accept that position, and, furthermore, take note of the valuable suggestion, made in the report of that Committee, that further reviews should take place at stated intervals, instead of merely this review once and for all. I think it is clear that these reviews at intervals will be a feature of the policy which this Government, and, indeed, future Governments, will need to adopt with regard to agriculture.
The hon. Member requested me to speak, if I could, on the question of efficiency—as to whether it could be truly said that efficiency was a feature of the developments in agriculture to-day. I think it can be truly said that efficiency
is a feature, and an increasing feature, in British production. I cannot go into details, because the time at my disposal is short and there are on the Paper other Orders of great interest to the House with which it is desired to proceed, but I would ask the hon. Member to consider the fact that the British producer has held his own, with, as I shall show, a relatively limited amount of assistance throughout the gravest and longest depression in agricultural prices that we have ever known; and he has not only done that, but has been able at the same time to maintain a rate of wages even equal to that paid in 1927 and 1928—a standard from which all other agricultures in the world have fallen away to the most calamitous extent. It seems to me that that one sentence in itself is enough to show that efficient production is going on in agriculture in this country.
To give another example, let me take the vexed question of sugar beet, to which we shall have to devote a great deal of our attention in future months. After all, at the inception of the scheme the cash assistance offered was 21s. 9d. per cwt. By 1934–5 we had brought it down to 7s. 3d. For the present campaign we put the figure at one not exceeding 6s. 6d. and I presented yesterday a White Paper which indicated that we expect to be able to get down to a total figure of 5s. 3d. per cwt. in the 1936–7 campaign.

Sir H. SAMUEL: What is the value of the sugar?

Mr. ELLIOT: I will return to the right hon. Gentleman's argument in a moment. The average yield per acre has risen from 7.7 tons in the first five seasons to over 10 tons in 1934–35. That is above the yield per acre in France, United States and Czechoslovakia, all great sugar producing countries which have been at the matter for many years. It is below the figure for Belgium and Holland. I do not pretend that in a short period we can surpass all records, but there is evidence of increasing efficiency. As for the Dutch figures, I was at the luncheon of the Beet Sugar Society on 2nd May and prizes were awarded for a yield of 22½ tons per acre and 17½ per cent. of sugar, resulting in an output of sugar per acre of no less than 8,767 lbs. People who can produce over 8,000 lbs. of sugar out of an
acre of English soil are not inefficient producers. Of wheat, which is another assisted crop, our output per acre is already double that of most of the great wheat exporting countries which are our competitors. In milk we have, after all, found buyers for every gallon of milk that we have produced and, leaving for the moment the discussion so ably conducted by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) whether there should be or should not be a milk scheme at all, I think he will not deny that production is increasing to an embarrassing extent. Organisation is having the effect that, whereas in Scotland in 1928 skimmed milk amounting to 1,350,000 gallons was run to waste, it was last year brought down to 340,000 gallons and next year it will be brought down to nil. [Interruption.] We cannot clear up everything in an afternoon, but this skimmed milk was being wasted in hundreds of thousands of gallons and only last week I opened a factory at Kirkcudbright where that product is being dried and used as a wholesome food, and that is an advantage of which, I am sure, the whole country will reap the benefit.
The mere fact that our livestock producers have been able to stand up against the fall in prices since 1932 is an indication that livestock breeding and feeding are carried out in an efficient manner. There are such things as central slaughtering, auction marts and processing factories. Central auction marts exist in Scotland but they have not succeeded by themselves in averting the crisis there. The difficulty is that we have no working example here by which we can test out certain theoretical claims that are made, but I am happy to say that the Corporation of the City of Leicester has in mind a very interesting development. They are going to test out the efficiency of a central slaughtering plant operating on factory lines. I understand the Development Commissioners are prepared in certain conditions to give favourable consideration to a grant from the Development Fund in aid of the capital costs of certain features of that enterprise. This is a practical example of what we all have in mind—testing out in proper experimental conditions the value or otherwise of a reform
which has been talked about for many years, but which only experiment will enable us to put to the test.
We have, of course, had the argument from the hon. Member for Don Valley and others that not only was bacon production not efficient, but that bacon was actually scarce and dear and had disappeared from the tables of the working classes. Indeed the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) indicated that in some way or other bacon was ceasing to be a feature of the breakfast table. All that one can say is that bacon is 12½ per cent. cheaper than it was in the last year of Free Trade, in 1930. I cannot say fairer than that. When he was supporting the Labour Government the hon. Member did not indicate that bacon was scarce and dear, that it was not a feature on the table of the working classes and that the price was excessive, although it was 12½ per cent. higher than it is to-day. The quantities now are as they were then, because the level which was used for quota purposes was based upon the average of five years. There is as much bacon in the country now as when the Labour Government were in power and the bacon is cheaper.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in 1931 the greatest consumption of bacon occurred merely because the price was lower than it had ever been before? Quantities were large, but there was a ready market for all the extra bacon at the lower price. I am not arguing that it was an economic price, but in that year, when the maximum quantities were available, the price was the lowest. Since restriction, the price has increased.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am not denying that bacon has been lower in price or that quantities have been greater. I only say that it is an over-statement to pretend that quantities now have been reduced below what the working classes were receiving in years when, admittedly, they were not unprosperous, or that prices are above what they were in years when, admittedly, bacon was not out of the reach of the ordinary working man. I do not wish to press the argument unduly. I would only say that the hon. Member for Don Valley has himself admitted that that very sudden drop in the price of
bacon was indeed a drop which was pushing it to an uneconomic level and that the natural consequence was a steep rise in the price of bacon far above the level at which the price of bacon is to-day. That is not a matter of theory but of practice. We have seen time and time again the pig cycle bring the price of bacon up after a temporary slump far above what it is to-day, and we say that the levelling up of these sudden rises and sudden slumps is to the advantage of the consumer as well as to the producer. It is no advantage to the consumer to drive the producer out of business by unremunerative prices. He obtains a temporary advantage, but in the end he has to pay dearly for the temporary advantage which he enjoys.
The complaint against the quota arrangements, and on which there has been criticism from various parts of the House, is that they are too generous for producers either here or abroad, but it is not good business for this country to drive out of business producers either here or abroad. A reasonable price is good for all in trade. Trade is for mutual advantage, and it is no argument to say, "You should have been unfair to the foreigner, and not given him so good a price" even if such a price was necessary to keep him in production in order to send foodstuffs here. A study of the great demonstrations by Danish farmers against the extraordinary low payments which they are receiving for their products is a fairly sound argument against those who say that an unnecessarily generous attitude has been shown in the arrangements we have made with foreign countries.
It may well be that further adjustments can be made, and that what we seek to secure can properly be secured for the advantage of our own people and of the consumers in this country, but I do not think it can truly be said, surveying the world as a whole, that the people of this country are paying, either at home or abroad, unreasonably high prices for the foodstuffs which they are enjoying. The prices of foodstuffs in this country are lower than they are almost anywhere in the world, and the policy of the Government, of any Government in this country, must be, as I have said repeatedly, to allow the maximum quantity
of foodstuffs, at the lowest prices consistent with reasonable remuneration for our own people. We must encourage our own producers of food, but, subject to that, we ought to allow large quantities of supplies to reach this country. There is no other policy which any Government could follow. Any Minister of Agriculture or President of the Board of Trade standing in my place would be bound to take the line that we had to help our own people and also had to allow good and cheap food supplies to reach the consuming millions of our town dwellers.
The special difficulty of the Minister of Agriculture or the President of the Board of Trade in this country is that he must always keep in mind the shopping masses of the town, and that it is bad agricultural policy to push food prices to a point where consumption would be checked. That is the maxim of all of us, and that is why the levy subsidy principle, by taking a small proportion of the extraordinary world prices and using that to weight the price in favour of our own people, is a policy which any Government whatever in this country might reasonably adopt. The latest recruit to this policy is the hon. Member for Don Valley. I have it on record. I specially put it down. Only to-night he came out wholeheartedly in favour of a levy subsidy on dairy produce. I thought it was a most interesting admission, and I specially wrote it down. He said: "Use the revenues from the dairy duties to enable the milk prices to be reduced. Take the money from the levy on imported dairy produce and use it for the benefit of the dairy producers in this country."

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: That is done already. There is, of course, in existence at the moment a customs duty upon various products. I said for the purpose of helping the milk producer, and if you want to extend cheap milk to children under five years of age, use the money you are now collecting on dairy products and duties for that purpose.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am glad to be assured that it was not a mere slip of the tongue, but that it was in fact advocated by the hon. Member. The arguments which have been brought forward as to the other developments of agriculture, I am
afraid it is not possible for me to go into to-night. The subject of agriculture is so wide that there is a danger of not being able to see the wood for the trees, and I have been so closely associated with agriculture now for a period which seems short in months but long in work, that I cannot help feeling that at times I may bore the House with the addresses which I give on agricultural subjects.
Before I come to more general matters, I wish to say a word upon the further question which was brought up by the hon. Member for Don Valley—Has Labour received a reasonable share of the advantages from the effort which this House has made in the past few years? Again I say, we can prove in a single sentence that between 1929 and to-day agricultural wages have, after a short drop, recovered all that they lost and stand at the highest point they have ever done since the organised wages machinery came into existence. During that time wages in the United States have gone down 46 per cent. That one sentence shows the effect of the great depression on a great, rich and determined country, and of the crash which has been averted in this country.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Are these agricultural wages?

Mr. ELLIOT: Agricultural wages for 2,700,000 agricultural labourers in the United States whose receipts have now not merely fallen far below what they were in 1929, but are far below the levels of agricultural wages in this country. Every one of our agricultural labourers on an average is receiving more than the agricultural labourer in the United States, with all the advantages of a new country with high industrial activity and mechanised power. We have by our efforts in this House and by the efforts of the agricultural industry averted that position, and our wages are as high as ever they were in that country.
I was requested by the hon. Member for Don Valley to deal with the subject of the staff of inspectors. We have, after putting on a temporary squad, gone back to the policy of a larger permanent inspectoral staff as a whole. We have now some 18 agricultural inspectors who are at work, and in addition we have whole-time secretaries of all the agricultural committees. The whole-time secretary is
undoubtedly an advantage in these matters. I do not wish to say that we do not receive good and faithful service from part-time secretaries, but there is an advantage in having whole-time secretaries of these committees. We have the machinery of wages boards, which cover the country, we have whole-time secretaries for the committees, and, in addition, we have an inspectorate which has been reinforced by two or three new members in the last year. Our permanent inspectors have been increased from 15 to 18, and the test inspections which are now being undertaken are intended to ensure that the efficiency of the wages machinery is being thoroughly tested out.
I must deal very briefly with the other points raised in the Debate. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) advanced what seemed to me two rather contradictory lines of argument. He said that the present organisations were experiencing difficulty; that the machinery of the Pigs Board and the Milk Board was far from running smoothly, but that it was still creaking and groaning. Inevitably it is. You cannot start a scheme of the size of the Milk Scheme and the Pigs Scheme and expect it to run forthwith with the smoothness of some business that has been going on for many years. Then the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have discovered a slackening for organisation in the countryside. It is only natural until the countryside have been able to appreciate and digest the machinery we have put into existence that they should show a certain reluctance about embarking on more machinery. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire said that there was a great deal too much machinery, and that it ought to be swept away.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The machinery has digested the people.

Mr. ELLIOT: I should like to know of the process in any industry in which a machine can digest a man, although it is said that to-day machines are eating men. Surely, this is the moment to pause, to consider and to take stock of the situation and not to impose organised machinery unduly upon the agriculturists of this country until they have had time to size up that which is already in existence, and until we can appreciate whether or not the schemes require to be amended. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall
was followed at some interval by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) who advanced a novel argument, which I was surprised to hear from one who so recently and so enthusiastically acclaimed the plans of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), as set forth in the volume, "Organising Prosperity." The right hon. Gentleman attacked very vigorously the suggestion that the beet-sugar factories should be in different parts of the country more suitable perhaps for the agricultural industry than for the best economic efficiency which might possibly be obtained from them. I remember an eloquent passage in the plans of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in which he says:
The fertility of modern invention and the commercial application of new scientific discoveries are constantly leading to the rise of fresh industries which contribute much to the wellbeing and amenity of the world. It will be the task of the Board to see that when such industries arise, they are encouraged to establish themselves in districts where they will best contribute to reducing our unemployment problem, and it should be prepared to further this process by assisting them on approved lines to obtain the capital they will require for setting up their works. It should be the part of sane national policy to secure that new industrial developments are directed to the neighbourhoods where they will best serve our social economy.
Many of the suggestions in this plan of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs have, I understand, been derived from various views held and brought forward by himself and the right hon. Gentleman opposite and others at various periods in our political history, and commended to us with great vigour, and I am astonished to find that the right hon. Member for Darwen has thrown them over and is prepared to use the edge of circumstance in so far as it can be applied to the beet-sugar industry. It is impossible to get the right hon. Gentleman to give any very close consideration to the questions of merit as affecting the beet-sugar industry. He is ready to ride roughshod over the plans of his political friends and to ignore the rules of arithmetic in order to prove that the beet-sugar industry is wrong.
The hon. Member for St. Rollox indicated that he had doubts about the industry, but I am afraid that he represents a party split, because he will have great difficulty in getting hon. and right hon.
Gentlemen below him on the benches opposite to go with him in the Division Lobby in his opposition. The Labour party has accepted the position that the beet-sugar industry in default of an alternative crop should reasonably be maintained in this country. The verdict on that matter is not the verdict of one section but the verdict of all parties, wherever they sit in this House.
Then there was the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire. He delivered a frontal attack on the whole of the 1931 Act, but I am sure that he will admit that we could not abolish that Act by my ipse dixit. It would require legislation to do that, and therefore it would not be in order for me to deal with his remarks on that point. His theory was that all the suffering brought about by the laws of nature were right, but if suffering was brought about in any way by Government intervention it was all wrong. That does not square with my experience of the human race. What the human race objects to is suffering, and whether it is brought about by men or by nature they will take vigorous steps to avert it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I said that you are making one set of farmers devour another set of farmers, like the way Sawney Bean, the celebrated Ayrshire cannibal, used to do with people in the fifteenth century. You are setting the dairymen, the big men, to eat up the small dairymen, taking their cows and destroying them. That is wrong.

Mr. ELLIOT: I cannot go into that question to-night. The milk scheme, by my hon. and learned Friend's own admission, has been of great advantage to many dairymen in his own constituency, and it is of great help to the industry itself. I have dealt with the main points, except for the desire of the House to be reassured as to malting barley. I will do my utmost to make it clear that the gentleman's agreement between the brewers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still taken as binding by the Brewers' Society. In the season which is now opening they will do their utmost to take supplies of British barley. I know from personal discussions with them that they are most reluctant to find themselves at variance with the farmers, and anything that would ease the relations
between themselves and the barley producers they would welcome. Whether by agreement or duty or in some other way, I hope that this difficult matter will be satisfactorily adjusted.
We must remember that the fall in prices which has brought great benefit to the people of this country in lower food prices has depressed agriculture in this country. Without the assistance that has been given to the agricultural industry it would certainly have sunk. Without State assistance in some form or another agriculture as we know it could not have been continued. I say that with a full sense of responsibility. The full equivalent of the weight of the interest and service of the National Debt has inured to the benefit of the workpeople of this country through the fall in prices, and it is not unreasonable to set off as a discount the subsidies which this House has voted from time to time to the agricultural industry, some of which are to be found in this Consolidated Fund Bill. The people of this country are well fed and more prosperous than those of almost any other country, and we have been able to save agriculture from the ruin which was coming upon it, and put it upon lines on which it may go forward to a prosperous and useful future.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow."

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (SEASONAL WORKERS) ORDER, 1935.

9.10 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move,
That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Anomalies) (Seasonal Workers) Order, 1935, laid before Parliament in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 55 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, be approved.
I am grateful to hon. Members for making it possible to take this Order this evening, although the hour may be somewhat late. We have, of course, been working against time in this matter, but I hope hon. Members will assist in passing this Order because if it is not put through now, seasonal workers who will obtain, easement might lose perhaps six or seven weeks. I need not detain the House very long with any history of this matter. It will perhaps suffice if I say that the general Acts under which this Order will be made and the regulations now operating are as follow: If a person is a member of the class of workers who are included in the occupation of seasonal workers, and if the seasonal occupation is his normal employment, then he must satisfy the special conditions in order to qualify for benefit during the off season. I need not detail the special conditions; they are found in the admirable and lucid report of the Committee which accompanies the Order. One word about the two classes of seasonal workers affected. There is the class in holiday resorts, waitresses and waiters and servants in boarding-houses and hotels, and others; and there are the seasonal workers unemployed in other localities—fish workers, beet workers, the "stop-me-and-buy-one" men in the ice cream trade, and so on.
The origin of these particular proposals is this: Under the original Act an Advisory Committee of nine persons was set up. The Unemployment Insurance Act of last year replaced this by the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee. The original Advisory Committee recommended an alteration which took place in August, 1933, but despite that slight amendment the working of the arrangement under the Act continued to be criticised. Criticisms were made in this House by hon. Members and in the country by those who had a knowledge of the seasonal workers. The result was that the Ministry of Labour carried out a very close survey through its inspectorate which confirmed the substance of some of the criticisms and, therefore, the Minister referred the question to the Unemployment Insurance Committee. The Committee have reported, after having received both oral and written representations from many sources, including several Members of this House.
I can sum up the report for the purposes of this discussion by pointing out that they recommended three things—first, that there was a real danger to the Insurance Fund but for the operation of the Anomalies Act; secondly, that easements, six in number, should be made in order to meet some of the criticisms which were well founded; and, thirdly, and very important, that certain alterations were necessary as regards unemployment assistance. They also pointed out that these latter alterations cannot be made by Order. One word on that. It cannot be done under an Order, it is clearly a matter which falls to be dealt with by the Unemployment Assistance Board. I may inform the House that I have approached the Board with the request that they should give the Committee's proposal their careful consideration. The question whether anything can be done without legislation is by no means clear, and as the proposal is intimately connected with other proposals which arise on unemployment assistance, I am not in a position at this stage to say how far it will be possible to give effect to the proposal. But I repeat, the Committee made it quite clear that it cannot be done by this or any other Order made in this way.
The House will observe that the report of the Committee suggests that the easements should be made by means of two groups of amendments—six amendments in all—which seek to obtain two main results. In the first group there are four amendments which make it easier for certain claimants, although they have been held to be seasonal workers, to get benefit in the off-season; and in the other group two amendments, which will keep outside the definition of "seasonal worker" a number of people who now fall within. A word about the scope of the Order as a whole. It is self-contained. It is so drafted as to take the place of two existing Orders in so far as they cover seasonal workers, and, in the second place, portions of existing Orders relating to seasonal workers are revoked, and, in so far as their substance remains unamended they are incorporated in the new Order. The Order is, therefore, self-contained, and there is no need to refer to the Orders which are repealed.
This difficult matter has a jargon of its own, the kind of language that experts use when they want to make simple things appear very mysterious and, therefore, I shall best serve the interests of the House if I give a short summary of the Order. Paragraph 1 deals with repeals and rights and obligations; paragraph 2 with definitions and paragraph 3 with "the period of the off-season so current." In addition, paragraph 3 contains an adaptation for workers who are in the middle of an off-season at the beginning of an insurance year such as professional footballers, maltsters and others. It also excludes periods when the claimant was sick. Paragraph 4 makes two modifications in the special conditions which seasonal workers have to satisfy as to actual employment. In the first place all reference to insurable employment has been deleted from the special provisions. In the second place paragraph 4 permits the claimant to aggregate the work done in the relevant off-seasons. Paragraph 5 is a limiting provision to exclude such industries as the building and clothing trades from the application of the Order. Paragraph 6 (1) affects all seasonal workers and enables an aggregation of work in more than a single district to be made while paragraph 6 (2) excludes certain industrial workers who through force of circumstances have taken up seasonal work, although it is not their normal work. It has also two provisos, one affecting ex-service men and the second affecting workers in trades insured under special schemes.
I now take these paragraphs one by one, showing how each operates and its effect. Paragraph 1 cancels the existing Anomalies Regulations in their application to seasonal workers. The last four lines are a reproduction of a section of the Interpretation Act, 1889, which applies to practically every Act of Parliament containing repealing sections and is in common form. Its effect is that if, before the repealing law comes into force, a right has been acquired under the Orders which are being repealed, but has not yet been enforced, the repeal of the Order does not prevent the right being enforced after the repeal, and similarly of course with an obligation. Paragraph 2 need not detain us long. It contains the necessary definitions and is, in substance, a reproduction of part of the existing Order. For instance, the
definition of "off-season" is the same as that in paragraph 2 (ii) of the existing Order and the definition of "seasonal worker" is taken from the existing paragraph 2 (1). Thus paragraph 2 is solely concerned with definitions germane to seasonal workers. In paragraph 3 (1) we come to the question of "the period of the off-season so current" which has given rise to a great deal of criticism among those who have watched the operation of the previous Order. The paragraph carries out the suggested Amendment (iv) on page 10 of the report. It is designed to remove the effect of the statutory authority's interpretation of the words "during the period of the off-season so current," in the existing Order. Hon. Members who have made representations to the Committee and the Minister on this point will know that it has been ruled that each part of the off-season must stand by itself. For example the period between Christmas and Easter or the period between Easter and Whitsuntide have to stand, in the existing Order, under this term "the period of the off-season so current," by themselves. The effect of that ruling has been to require the seasonal worker to show 25 per cent. in each of those short periods if he wants to pray in aid the current off-season. This has been often very hard upon the claimant and is not what is intended. Paragraph 3 (i) is designed to remove the difficulty. There is also an adaptation to meet the case of workers such as professional footballers and maltsters who are in the middle of an off-season at the beginning of an insurance year. The insurance year begins in July and the professional footballer and the maltster are in the middle of the off-season then. For them the Order substitutes the term "calendar year" for "insurance year." Otherwise their off-season would be broken artificially into two parts, of which the first would be linked with the second part of the off-season in the preceding summer, while the second would be linked with the first part of the off-season in the succeeding summer. The latter part of this paragraph provides that in such cases regard shall be had to the calendar year within which the whole of the off-season normally falls. I think it clears up the main difficulty in most of these cases.
Paragraph 3 (ii) is concerned with sickness and carries out the Committee's recommendation number (iii) on page 10 of the report. It excludes in the reckoning of the period of off-season any period during which the claimant was sick. At present the seasonal worker's failure to obtain the necessary amount of work in the off-season to qualify him for unemployment benefit, may be due to sickness preventing him doing work during the off-season which otherwise would have been available for him. The effect of the Amendment is to reduce the period of the off-season by the duration of sickness, and therefore to reduce the amount of off-season employment required to qualify for benefit in that off-season. Paragraph 4 (1) is in reference to the special conditions which the seasonal worker has to satisfy in addition to the ordinary conditions for benefit. It incorporates the modifications in the special conditions recommended by the Committee. These relate, first, to actual employment, to a substantial extent, in past off-seasons and second, to the expectation of employment in future off-seasons. The Committee suggest changes which make it easier for a claimant to satisfy the condition as to actual employment. They propose no changes in the conditions as to expectation of employment in future off-seasons which in practice has no appreciable effect in excluding claimants from benefit.
These recommendations are numbers (i) and (ii) on page 10 of the report. To meet the first, all reference to insurable employment has been deleted from the special conditions. The claimant will now have to show only that be has done the necessary amount of work, whether insurable or uninsurable, in two off-seasons out of three preceding his claim and the current off-season may be one of these. The test is the man's ability to obtain work without the qualification that it should be insurable work. That will affect a great number of seasonal workers. To meet the second recommendation provision has been made in paragraph 4 (1) (iii) to permit a claimant to aggregate work done in the relevant off-seasons so as to show that on an average he has been employed to the requisite extent during the two off-seasons in question and has done some work in each of the two off-seasons. This is designed to meet the case of the claimant who has a longer
spell of off-season work in one of the two years mentioned in the special conditions and less than the required amount in the other, or in the current off-season, and will be a substantial relief to some seasonal workers.
I wish to make four minor notes on paragraph 4 (1). It allows any employment to qualify. 4 (1) (b) reproduces the omission of the reference to insurable employment and in practice the claimant who has satisfied the other special conditions is assumed to satisfy this condition too. I emphasise the fact that if this were omitted, there would be a danger that the Umpire might interpret the condition as involving a substantial alteration in the intention of Parliament, and there is no such alteration of intention. Paragraph 4 (2) repeats in relation to the calculation of work in the off-season the paragraph in 3 (1) relating to the reckoning of periods of off-seasons. The umpire's interpretation of "employed to a substantial extent during the off-season" is incorporated in paragraph 4 (1) (iii). The term "claim" has been substituted for "application" because of a change in the technical meaning of "application" made by Section 29 (2) of the 1934 Act, now Section 113 of the 1935 Act. With regard to paragraph 5, this reproduces 2 (iii) of the present Orders, with a verbal alteration of "those portions of the said class" to the simple description "seasonal workers." This is a limiting provision designed to prevent the application of the Order to industries such as the building and clothing trades, in which, while there are marked seasonal fluctuations of work, there is no off-season in which no substantial amount of employment is available in any particular district.
I come to paragraph 6 and the two Amendments, which are designed to exclude certain workers from the operation of the seasonal workers' special conditions. They are contained in paragraph 6 (1), which affects all seasonal workers and in 6 (2), which affects certain industrial workers who have fallen on distressful times in their own trade and have taken up seasonal work. They operate in the following way: Paragraph 6 (1) has to do with the term "the same district." It embodies the suggestion numbered (ii) in page 9 of the Committee's Report. At present a claimant who can show that he
is employed in occupations within a single district, of which the aggregation of the periods of season is 39 weeks or more, is not regarded as a seasonal worker. If, however, he is employed in occupations in more than one district such aggregations of period of season are not permitted and he may be treated as in seasonal work. Paragraph 6 (1) will enable the aggregation of periods of season whether consecutive and followed in the same district or not. This will affect certain fisher folk who, of course, follow the fish, and certain other workers.
Paragraph 6 (2) affects ordinary industrial workers such as those who have fallen under great depression in their own trade and gives effect to the suggestion numbered (i) in page 9 of the Committee's report. The intention of the provision is to exclude from the scope of the Order the ordinary industrial worker who, through force of circumstances, has taken up seasonal work and who has a fairly regular recent record of employment before he took that seasonal work. The Clause gives him this opportunity. It widens his chance of securing stamps by taking the last 10-year period. It allows him to select any five consecutive years inside that 10-year period and provides that if in any four years of five consecutive years, he gets 150 contributions, he will then be excluded from the seasonal workers' operation. That means in four years, being 208 contributions, he will be allowed 58 weeks of grace for unemployment, sickness, holidays and other things—150 contributions in any four of five consecutive years in the last 10 years. It will give the industrial worker a broader basis from which the calculation of his contributions can be made, and I am advised that not only these particular workers may take advantage of this provision of paragraph 6 (2) but that a certain number of workers who have not at any time followed a trade that provides fairly regular employment all the year round will be able to take advantage of that paragraph.
Let me say a word or two about the two provisos. Proviso (a) puts the ex-service man in the same position as the ordinary industrial contributor in the matter of being able to show contributions in the last 10 years. The proviso is more generous than the strict terms of the penultimate paragraph of the Report,
inasmuch as contributions treated as paid under Section 96 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, would give the ex-Service man the benefit of service in the Force only as far back as 30th June, 1927, whereas the proviso gives him the benefit of all service for the full 10 years if necessary by virtue of the words "or which have applied if the date of his discharge had been after 30th June, 1927." The second proviso (b) of this paragraph affects the workers who have been in special schemes. It is inserted to cover the case of the worker who, before taking up seasonal work, was insured in one or other of the special schemes, such as banking or insurance. The form of words was necessary because under these special schemes contributions were paid in a lump sum quarterly, and provision therefore had to be made for converting the quarterly contributions into the equivalent number of weeks for the purposes of this Order.
The House may be asking what will be the net effect of all this jargon in the Order. The net effect, as far as we can calculate it, is as follows. The House will know that last year there were 20,000 disallowances. It is calculated that had the terms of this Order been in operation, there would have been 23 per cent. fewer disallowances. As to the cost, I can only give an approximate figure, but it will be in the neighbourhood of £50,000. This Order will mitigate a number of hardships which have been recently expressed, and which have been persistently pressed by Members in this House and from outside quarters, and recognised by the Committee in their very clear report. The Order is an easement of the present position, while it still allows the Act to protect the fund, as is recognised by the Committee, and as was recognised by the House in 1931, to be necessary. In the belief that this easement will be generally acceptable to the House, I commend the Order to the House.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The House will be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation he has given of a very complicated Order. The area he has covered is very wide. I think—it may be a daring statement—that it can be understood by very few Members in the House, and I should not describe myself as one of them. It will mainly be understood
by Members who represent industries in different parts of the country affected by the various sections. For that reason I wish we could have had a whole day to discuss this very important Order. I confess that, although it means an easement for some sections of people, I was rather reluctant to take this course and had to give some consideration to it with my hon. Friends before we finally decided to rush this thing through as we are doing. But it is true that if it did not get through this week, a certain number of people would in the autumn have lost benefit that they might otherwise have obtained. It is all the more necessary to have a long and wide discussion upon this matter, because I think this is the first discussion we have had since the operation of this Order. There has been plenty of debating of it, but I do not think we have had a straight-out opportunity, so to speak, of discussing the regulations that we were working previously, and it is all the more regrettable, because when the Bill went through the House in 1934, owing to the operation of the Guillotine we were not able to discuss the matter then. Indeed, it was largely because of that difficulty that the House agreed to work by Order rather than by the ordinary regulations.
On the face of it, some of these sections are improvements, but they are like all regulations of this kind: it seems to me that they sometimes carry certain dangers. Take, for instance, 6 (1), dealing with the 39 weeks. This is an improvement on the face of it, but it does not affect a great many people. Indeed, the outstanding thing about this Order is that it is very difficult to get any reasonable estimate as to how many will be affected by it. On page 9 of the report—and as far as simplicity is concerned it is a valuable report—we are told:
The Seasonal Workers' Orders should not apply to a worker whose normal seasons of employment exceed 39 weeks in the aggregate, even though the employment is in different districts. This Amendment corrects an interpretation placed by the Umpire on the existing Orders. It places the worker who moves from one district to another in the same position as if all his work were in one district. The change is a small, one … but is clearly right in principle and removes an intended anomaly.
That means that the man who works 39 weeks under these conditions will be free
from the general operation, but I ask the House to note that it has been possible under the administration during the past year or two to include men who actually worked up to 39 weeks. I submit that that was the kind of thing that nobody ever dreamed of and that it justifies the claim which the report says was made before, that there has been an extension of these two injustices that were originally never contemplated. On this particular point I want to ask a question of the Minister, because, like all remedies dealing with this matter, it leaves very grave dangers. Some of my friends think that the very act of extending such classes on such a standard means that we are under the danger of bringing other people within the operation of the Seasonal Order who have not been there before. I make that statement to the Minister because it is a fear that is held by friends of my own. On page 6 of the report there is this statement:
Relatively to unemployment and the total number of claims to benefit, the number of disallowances under the Seasonal Workers' Orders has increased. The stationary character of the number of disallowances in the past three years is consistent with, though it does not prove, the contention of some critics of the Orders that there has been a gradual extension of their scope to new classes of workers.
I know very well that, apart from this new section, there are the regular tests for seasonal workers and there are the definitions affected by the Umpire's decisions. It has been clearly stated that the building trades, for instance, are ruled out, but in spite of that there are friends of mine who think—and it is a point that ought to be answered—that in erecting the 39 weeks standard in order to exclude certain people who have been included before, you might run the danger of making that a standard which includes other classes who have not been contemplated as seasonal workers in the past. I want to ask the Minister whether he can give a guarantee that, in passing this section to benefit one or two small industries, we are not running the danger of including industries that are not now seasonal. Then this Order says that the aggregate seasons in the district or districts in which he is normally employed amount to 39 weeks. What is going to be the standard of "normal"? I suppose that would be a matter for the Umpire's
decisions, I should be very much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what will be meant by "normal" in this respect.
Then there is 6 (2), dealing with the four out of five years in any 10 consecutive years. It will make it possible for certain people to go into seasonal trades without losing status, and that, of course, has been a very great grievance. But again we may have people with fairly decent contribution records, having regard to the circumstances in the district in which they have lived and worked, but they will not have the 150; they may have 148 or 149, and by making that new standard it may be that you will create fresh difficulties, even though it means an easement for particular people in the long run. There is also an improvement in that the term "employment" is to be used rather than "insurable employment." That will make it possible for a certain number of workers—it is difficult to know how many—to retain their benefit status. But the amount of insurable work into which seasonal workers can go outside their own work is very limited. Some may be able to go into agriculture, but I should think that would be only to a limited extent. While this is going to do a certain amount of good, and perhaps will save a limited number of workers, it is not going to be of very wide effect.
In Section 4 (iii) of the draft Order it is stated:
that in either case such employment amounts in the aggregate to at least at much as one-quarter of the whole of the combined extent of the respective off-seasons as aforesaid.
What does that mean? Does it mean that the aggregate amount of, say, two or three seasons, is to be used instead of simply one season as at present, because I understand that the present method is to take 25 per cent. of the off-season as the standard? The allowance for sickness is very good, as are also the contributions for airmen, soldiers and sailors to be taken into consideration on the principle and on the conditions suggested by the right hon. Gentléman. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it is that the contributions credited to boys and girls at school are not to operate in this instance? I do not remember seeing any reason for that in the report, but it does seem to me very
difficult to explain, when credits are operating for certain classes, why these credits do not operate in the case of younger people to whom Parliament has given that privilege, and yet it is to be denied to them in the operation of this Order. There is room for considerable debate, and I could have wished that we had longer time. This Order does certain good things. It lengthens the period during which claimants ordinarily employed otherwise may engage in seasonal work; it makes it easier for seasonal workers to qualify for benefit in the off-seasons; and it makes allowances for sickness and other things. All these provisions will help the applicant in some degree, but I would point out that the case put by Members of this House, by the public outside, and by the Trades Union Council was that this Seasonal Order had been applied to an extent and to classes never contemplated when the original Act was going through Parliament.
Those who are responsible for the reform have to meet the charge, and while they have not admitted if they certainly have not altogether repudiated it, that stage by stage the tendency has been to extend the operation of the Order to different classes. I think there is something in the nature of our industrial arrangements to-day that gives colour to that fact. Mechanism is changing industry. Nationalist isolation is changing industry. There are great changes taking place which are limiting certain industries that used to be at work from year's end to year's end. Although unemployment has been decreasing, the number of cases of disallowance under this Order has not decreased at all, and therefore there is substance in the charge that this Seasonal Order is being extended from one industry to another and from one class to another. All kinds of industries are becoming seasonal now, and general tests such as are laid down in these Regulations penalise people who, we think, should be fully entitled to benefit. The operation of this Order has proved in practice to be of such a nature that it has punished great numbers of people, and while we accept this Order, which certainly gives easement, as the Minister says, to an indefinite number, yet it is by no means a satisfactory thing that at this late hour of the night we should be dealing with a
subject which should be handled in a much more drastic way.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I would like to join in thanking the Minister for his explanation of this complicated and intricate Order. It is undoubtedly owing to their intricate nature that the development and practice of the seasonal workers regulations has led to extensions to classes and industries never foreseen by Parliament, and certainly never intended.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would be grateful if the hon. Member would tell us what Parliament did not intend to do.

Mr. WHITE: There have been developments in connection with the transport industry and with other industries that were never in the mind of this House when the matter was discussed before. Who, for example, would have imagined that in a jam factory a man might have been classed as a seasonal worker when he was employed in the orange season making marmalade, and later in the year became a seasonal worker when there was a seasonal rush in the maufacture of mincemeat? These were matters which were never in my contemplation, and these administrative matters have extended in a way which was not foreseen by Parliament. The fine drawing of distinctions has led to hardships and great dissatisfaction among large numbers of people. There has also been the general dissatisfaction caused to workers who had a substantial stamp qualification as seasonal workers being disallowed benefit, while others who had an inferior stamp qualification in normal employment were allowed benefit. Coming from a district where there are distressed industries, and where many of the more energetic people are determined to get work as best they may, and seek seasonal occupation, I am glad that the regulations will enable these people to qualify for benefit.
We ought not to dismiss from our minds the fact that the reputation of Parliament for dealing with matters of this kind is very low at present, and that makes it the more incumbent upon us to give the utmost attention to these matters and to have the maximum of time for considering them. For that reason I regret that, although this report has been in the hands of the Government for three weeks or thereabouts, whatever the length of our discussion to-night, we have not had
ample time to consider the draft Order or the report, and still less to have consultation with those of our friends who are concerned in the districts. I welcome one sentence in the report in which the committee say that they have not had time to make an exhaustive examination of this matter. I draw considerable comfort from that, and I hope that the committee will continue their study of this matter and get nearer the root principle of it. If they have not power to do it of their own volition, I hope they will do it at the Minister's request. I am rather surprised that there is no mention of clerical workers. There are a considerable number of cleical workers who have become seasonal workers, and I hope that the committee will not overlook them. There is a large number of clerical workers in connection with those who run football competitions—not hundreds, but thousands of them. I am not saying whether it is a desirable occupation or not, but when the season ends they are out of work. The youth or girl who may be determined to earn his living as a clerical worker may have his first period of employment in one of these offices, and when he comes out of his or her employment, however long the season may be, and whatever his stamp qualification may be, he is denied benefit. That is a matter to which attention should be given.
We welcome this draft Order for what it does. We are not unmindful of the fact that, as in the past, the alteration of regulations and orders may have effects which are very different from those in our minds at the present time. Undoubtedly, we welcome some of the recommendations; they will ease the situation very considerably. In particular we welcome the recommendation and that part of the Order which will enable different periods of off season work to be aggregated. As to the total effect of the draft Order, I confess that I cannot make any estimate. Having regard to the large number of complaints and the genuine difficulties I have seen in recent years, I do not feel optimistic that they will all be swept away, or even the majority of them, if the total net result is to be a payment of £50,000. We regret that we have not had a longer time to appreciate the value of the Order, or to enable us to be more certain of the criticisms for which we feel
there may be room, but I hope that the work of the committee will be continued, and, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether it will be continued with or without his request.

10.1 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Like the hon. Member who has just sat down, I, too, welcome the draft Order, and those of us who have had to do with seasonal workers must find a dual satisfaction in reading the report and the draft Order in that, first, there is some justification for what some of us have held out to our constituents as to the difference between a system of insurance and a system of State maintenance; and, secondly, we find in the Amendment some justification for the complaints made on all sides of the House for many months past as to the working of the existing regulations hitherto. The draft Order improves the position, but I cannot accept the broad generalisation that the Amendments now proposed and the possible application of Part II, which the report says is desirable, will necessarily make generally acceptable and fair the conditions under which the workers act. It seems to me that the Report itself is contradictory in this particular respect, for on page 7 there is a justification by figures that seasonal workers are, as a class, bad risks for unemployment insurance. The report makes out that seasonal workers as a class are rather worse risks than the general level of industrial employees. The report then proceeds to sub-divide and classify in treatment between various classes of seasonal workers, various localities and various different trades. After all, you cannot generalise, on the one hand, and say that seasonal workers are as a class bad risks, and then proceed, having condemned them as a total class, to try to deal with them in particular categories. It seems to me that the report is trying to get the best of both worlds. I agree that our whole insurance system in this country is interwoven, with sub-divisions, classifications of localities, and so on. In respect of seasonal workers we must continue that sub-division. We must reject this report that seasonal workers can be treated as a bad risk.
It seems to me that the draft Order, while it will do a great deal of good, does not do away with the basic injustice that seasonal workers are definitely ordered to pay contributions in respect
of periods when they have employment and are definitely debarred from drawing benefit during the periods when they are equally certain of being unemployed. That is a basic injustice which is not removed by this draft Order, although the position is improved. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will not answer me with the general reply, "Oh, they are bad risks." If there were time tonight I could show that there are definite subdivisions of seasonal workers among whom injustices will continue in spite of this draft Order, and, if the principle of class subdivisions of seasonal workers be conceded, I cannot agree that the plea that seasonal workers as a whole are bad risks is any justification for declining to take action which would right the injustices of a limited section of them.
Let us not shut our eyes to the fact that there may have to be further amendments of the law in respect of seasonal workers. While we welcome this Order there is general agreement that this cannot be the end of things so far as seasonal workers are concerned. If it is found that, in spite of this Order, these injustices continue, I hope that the Unemployment Statutory Commission will have the position referred to them again for further investigation, hard as that may be on them. The report envisages further Amendments. It is stated at the end that the proposals are not complete, and I ask the Government to give an undertaking that the matter is not closed definitely or for a long time to come. I ask for that assurance in view of what I regard as a deplorable sentiment, or at least an unfortunate way of expressing it, which is contained in the very last sentence of the report. Having dealt with the effect of the amendments and the effect of transferring these workers to Part II, if that were possible, the report concludes:
If we are wrong in this"—
that is to say the effect of such action—
it will be possible to make further amendments later. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to retreat from a concession once made.
That is a most deplorable conclusion to an otherwise admirable report, because it means, in effect, that we must pursue a policy of conceding a minimum in case we give too much and then are too weak
to cancel what we have done. I was amazed to read those words,
It will be difficult, if not impossible, to retreat from a concession once made.
That is an admission of weakness and of a disinclination to admit you are wrong. At any rate the Government of the day had the courage to admit that their previous regulations were wrong; they had a courage which this Commission do not seem to possess. I hope the Government will not find such sentiments catching, because in that case any effective proposals which might be introduced under the new regulations might be choked by the fear of doing something which would be unpopular, and things might be done in the interests of expediency rather than on their merits. Again I say that I trust these sentiments will not be infectious in the Ministry of Labour, and that we shall continue to get amendments, when necessary, such as are made by this draft Order. The position of the seasonal workers has been vastly improved, but I hope the question is not closed, and that it will be reexamined in the light of the experience of the working of this draft Order, and further improvements introduced until, finally, the last injustice to this class is removed.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to say a word or two on this subject, because I suppose that in some way I have a more intimate connection with it, possibly, than most hon. Members. Hon. Members in opposition above the Gangway will forgive me if I say that I cannot agree with a single sentiment expressed by them. I would also apologise to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) for interrupting him, putting him "off his stride," but be used an expression, which I have heard repeatedly, that Parliament did not "intend" to do this or that. I cannot agree with those who suggest that Parliament was here doing something unwittingly—unless we on these benches were very unskilful in presenting our case. Anyone who reads the Debates in Committee on the Anomalies Act must be painfully aware that many things which have since happened were then predicted. Let any hon. Member, whether Labour, Liberal or Tory, read that Debate in fairness, and he will find everything set out in absolute detail, how
it applied to girls who went to work, and to men in the factories, and so on.
It has often been said that the Act was all right, but the administration was bad. If I ever heard an untruth, that is one. It is a deliberate untruth. If it had not been for the administration, particularly that of the umpire, the Act would have been far worse. The umpire has in fact already done some of the things which are now proposed. The umpire has set the pace, as well as put the brake on. The people who administer the Act are the same as those who administer other Acts of the Labour Government. I am sorry that this matter has come up for discussion at this hour of the night. I do not forget the speed at which that Act was passed. We passed the Act, which was to affect 350,000 people, in one night, when an attempt was made to suggest that votes should not be taken upon it, and that we should only be allowed to stand up in order that no votes should be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. That is an indication of the conditions under which it was passed, although it affected the lives of 350,000 people at least, allowing for double and treble claims.
We fought that Act. When I read about planning and constructive ideas, I reflect that it was the worst drafted Measure ever passed by this House. Never was there an Act so full of loopholes and of indefensible provisions, not only in respect of the seasonal worker but upon the intermittent worker, who perhaps works for two days a week and whose boss permits him to work for an extra day without any wages. The man gets benefit if he does three days' work, even though he works for his boss for nothing, but if he does not work for his boss for nothing he does not get benefit. That is the plan of people who hold distinguished positions, and who told us that shoals of people were getting benefit to which they were not entitled. I have heard denunciations of the means test, but I denounce that Act. If the number of people who were refused benefit under it—they were about 20,000—had been greater, the situation created would have been a first-class political scandal. It was not so, owing to the smallness of the number and because the widespread effects were not gathered together. There is far less to show for
this than for any other unemployment insurance attack upon the workers.
It might be argued in theory that there should be a means test to prevent people with £1,000 or £10,000 from getting benefit, but an occupational test is now being substituted for a means test. It is proposed to punish a person for the occupation he holds. What right have you to punish a man for his occupation? A man has no control over being a miner, an insurance agent or a joiner. A seasonal worker has no control over his job. You are substituting a worse test. What right have you to say that the provision in regard to 30 stamps in two years shall apply to everybody, except groups who follow a certain occupation? I appeared before the Advisory Committee and I came away feeling they were impressed with the argument which had already been discarded by Tory Members in this House, let alone Labour Members or ourselves, that this was not a paying proposition because the seasonal worker would draw more in benefit than he paid in contributions. That would apply also to a large number of other trades at different periods.
Take the shipbuilding industry. During the last five years it has been a colossal loss to the fund, but nobody says that it should be exempt. But, instead of these seasonal workers being a cost to the fund, they have actually saved the fund money. I do not speak of the fishing people, about whom I do not know very much, but, taking the great bulk of the seasonal workers in big towns—say in Cumberland, in Glasgow, or on the North-East Coast—if trade is good, while they do not follow their ordinary occupation in the off season, they go and take other jobs, and so save the fund money. They do not draw benefit, but they pay into the fund. And then it is said that, because they are seasonal workers, they are not good payers. Such people should never be classified in that way. This misnomer of saying that they cost the fund money is nonsense. Then the Statutory Committee, on page 9 of their report, make another statement which some of the members of the committee made to me. They say:
Reports obtained from Divisional Controllers of the Ministry of Labour agree in showing that the bulk of seasonal workers would like to get work in the off season if they could.
But they go on to say:
There are considerable groups of people who do not appear ordinarily to want work except during the season.
There is a law in the courts of this country, and I though it was usually accepted in Parliament, that, before you make grave charges against people, you should produce the evidence on which you base your case. Here grave charges are made against a large number of people that they do not want to work, but no evidence is offered. The Committee say that they have evidence from certain officials, but no evidence is produced. Who gave Sir William Beveridge, the chairman of this committee, who is a lecturer at the London School of Economics, the grace of God to say things about poor people? What right has he to set down a slander without a word of proof—for it is a slander to say in this document, without any attempt to prove it, that groups of people do not want to work. What right have the committee to say that? What kind of evidence have they? Who are their informers? In what districts are they? Who are they? There is no evidence. We are asked to continue these regulations in this whole-hearted fashion, and the only thing the committee can get to back up their claim is a statement that numbers of these people do not want work.
The hon. Member for Grimsby (Sir W. Womersley), when he was a free Member instead of a tied Member of the Government, and when he had a splendid record as a Tory, opposed the Government on this question. It is not an easy thing to do, but he did it. He knows every corner of Grimsby, and he knows these people—decent, kindly people. He knows how many of them in his town do not want work. That statement does not apply to them; it never came into their heads. I go to Grimsby occasionally to visit the prison there, though I am thankful to say, because of the weather, that I do not reside there, either inside or outside the prison.
On the Clyde there are men who go in the summer season to the boats. Their whole time is taken up wanting and trying to get jobs. Any divisional controller could make such a general statement were he not liable to be called to this bar or some other bar to prove it. I am sick and tired of this kind of thing.
The report has never tackled the issue. The original advisory committee was comprised of four trade unionists and four representatives of employers with a neutral chairman. For years they allowed these things to go on and never once did they bring in a report. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street was afraid these regulations might apply to categories outside them. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) said he had voted for the Anomalies Act and would vote for it again. If it is such a good Act and is good enough for fishers, why should it not apply to other trades? What right have you to claim better treatment for some than you give to others?
The last time I spoke I said the Minister had made a bad job of his case. This time he made a good job of a rotten case. What does sickness mean? The off season is 13 weeks and a person is sick for six weeks. It means that in the remaining seven he has to show 25 per cent. of work, a difficult thing in areas where depression is widespread. What does "uninsurable" means? Does it mean a person employed in an occupation where even health insurance stamps are not payable, that is to say, a person employing himself for a few weeks or working on commission? If a man went out on a coal lorry for three weeks, would that constitute employment? The Umpire a considerable time ago decided the case of domestic servants. It is true that he did not go as far as this Order goes, but he went a considerable way in modifying it. It was the Commissioner who introduced the 75 per cent. principle, and it is true that the Commissioner modified it later on to 75 per cent. of the off season. The test of this proposal is that it is to cost £50,000, and at the most 4,200 people will receive benefit who did not receive benefit before. The position is that you are still left with 16,000 men and women who will not receive benefit under this provision.
As far as the 4,200 persons are concerned, I welcome the Measure, but we who sit on these benches will never be satisfied with any other test than the ordinary insurance test. We think that 30 stamps in two years is far too stiff a proposition already, and is a sufficiently severe penalty for anyone, particularly in the districts where most of these people are to be found and in which work is
difficult to get. While we shall not oppose this Order to-night, we cannot say that we welcome it with much enthusiasm, and we shall take the earliest opportunity to see that not only the difficulty of the seasonal workers is removed, but that the whole Anomalies Act, which should never have been introduced, is abolished.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. NUNN: As one who has taken some interest in this question for the last few months, I am extremely grateful to the Minister and to the Statutory Committee for having given us at any rate this small measure of improvement. It stands to the credit of the National Government that they have considered and dealt with this question, which is one embracing a comparatively small number of people, but for those people a question of very serious importance indeed. To my knowledge they have listened to all sections of the House, and I know that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has been one of the chief movers in the attempt to get a change made, and hon. Members of my own party and hon. Members of the Liberal party opposite—I cannot speak from personal knowledge as to whether any hon. Member of the Labour party took a vital interest in this matter—have considered the needs of these unfortunate seasonal workers.

Mr. LAWSON: The Trades Union Congress gave evidence.

Mr. NUNN: Thank you, I did not know that the Trades Union Congress had done so. I was not aware of any hon. Member opposite having done anything about it. It was my fault for not knowing that, but I did come across other hon. Members who were very active. I should like to add to what other hon. Members have said, that we do not regard this as a final Measure. We are very grateful for what we are getting, and I am extremely grateful to the Minister for being able to introduce this draft Order now, so that the benefit may operate quickly. I think he will realise that we shall look upon this more or less as a step towards better things. I do not want to say more about that, but this question is a very serious one, although it affects a very limited number of people. We are not quite satisfied that we have got all that we ought to get.
I feel rather strongly about the question of the expectation of future employment. When a man under the ordinary conditions of employment, an ordinary insured worker, goes to the employment exchange for work, if work is offered him outside his district he is expected to take it. I do not see the justice of saying to a seasonal worker when he claims that he is eligible for ordinary employment, that the scope in which he may get that ordinary employment is in his own district. The seasonal worker should be eligible for work anywhere in the country, just the same as the ordinary insured worker. I am sure that this is a matter which the Minister will bear in mind. As there has been a good deal of what might almost appear to be grudging appreciation of this Order, and I do not want to seem myself to be grudging, I want to say how grateful I am for what has been done, but at the same time to enter a caveat that this is not the last thing, in all probability, that the Minister will hear about the matter.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN DAVIES: I am sorry that I cannot offer the least congratulations to the Minister or the Government for this Order. Knowing what hardships the seasonal workers have had imposed upon them during the last few years, instead of congratulating the Government I am afraid that my feelings are much nearer execrating the spirit of the Government, and particularly of the Statutory Committee which has produced side by side with this Order the explanatory memorandum. I have the disadvantage that I do not know much of the political history of the anomalies regulation, but I have had possibly more than my share of experience in connection with the Anomalies Order, and particularly of sitting at courts of referees and seeing hundreds of seasonal workers, particularly girls, who have returned during the off-season from seaside resorts and other places and who, after having put in seven, eight, nine, and even ten months of work have been deprived of any assistance, notwithstanding the fact that they have paid seven, eight, nine or ten months contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Act. If ever a Government perpetrated from the point of view of these seasonal workers a piece of sharp practice it was to impose the obligation of paying contributions to the Unemployment
Insurance Fund and when these persons were forced into unemployment to deliberately refuse to assist them. It has been known to me and probably to other hon. Members that girls have had to come back home during the off-season into homes that were extremely impoverished, and they had no recourse to any kind of assistance.

Major PROCTER: Was it not the Socialist Government that passed the Measure of which the hon. Member is complaining?

Mr. DAVIES: I am assuming no responsibility whatsoever for what a Socialist Government or any other Government did before I came to this House.

Major PROCTER: Why condemn us?

Mr. DAVIES: I presume that it was not only the Socialist party, who went into the Division Lobby on this matter. Could not the whole of these anomalies have been wiped out, particularly as the fund now shows a credit balance for last year of £21,500,000? The Minister has told us that the operation of this Order will possibly benefit seasonal workers to something like £50,000 a year. With such a balance in hand I think the Minister could have put sufficient pressure on the Statutory Committee to have made a complete clearance of these wretched anomalies. The peculiar thing is that the Government subsidise a number of training centres for prospective seasonal workers, and it is now clearer than ever that the Government should put an end to this wretched anomaly, whereby contributions are taken from the seasonal workers, and then, if they are unfortunate enough to become unemployed refuse them benefit. The plea of justification in the explanatory memorandum makes extraordinarily quaint reading when it attempts to re-define the meaning of insurance. Let me read this passage. The Statutory Committee tell us:
Nor even in regard to those who want work in the off-season, but have no chance of it, can we agree that it is a departure from the principle of insurance to enforce contributions while denying benefit in the off-season. On the contrary, insurance means insurance against a risk; insurance against a certainty is not insurance but subsidy.
That is the first time I have ever come across a definition of insurance in such terms. I suppose we are entitled to infer that, a person who has an insurance policy
on his life in anticipation of shuffling off this mortal coil, is not insuring, in view of the fact that that is an absolute certainty sooner or later; that it is not an insurance because it is not a risk but a certainty, while if a man puts a shilling on a doubtful horse it is insurance because the transaction obviously contains an element of risk. That is my reading of the new definition of insurance. I should like the Minister to satisfy me with respect to that paragraph. In his explanation we were led to understand that the changes proposed in paragraph 4 will be an advantage to many seasonal workers. My impression is that paragraph 4, instead of improving the position of the seasonal worker, makes that position worse and I wish that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) had pursued that point a little further. Under this proposal, two off-seasons are, as it were, being bound together. The question will be, whether the seasonal worker has been employed 25 per cent. during the two periods whereas now, under an umpire's decision, a seasonal worker who has worked 25 per cent. of his off-season—and that can be applied and is applied to one season only—immediately becomes entitled to benefit. By spreading it out over two seasons I suggest that we are placing the seasonal worker at a disadvantage.
Further, I wish the Minister to explain the position which will arise under paragraph 6. It tells us that the Order shall not apply to any seasonal worker who proves that the aggregate of the seasons in the district or districts in which he is normally employed amounts to 39 weeks in the year. Assume that the season is 36 weeks but that an individual seasonal worker, by some means, manages to work for 39 weeks. Will that individual be entitled to his benefit, notwithstanding the fact that his season is normally only 36 weeks? I hope that we shall have a definite answer on that; point. I reiterate that I am extremely sorry—and I am sure many hon. Members share that feeling—that the Government have not faced the position and swept away the whole of these anomalies and miseries, particularly as the Fund now shows an excellent credit balance and these are people who are entitled to considerations.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. HARBORD: I should like, in the first place, to compliment the Minister
of Labour on the amendments in the Draft Order and the manner in which he has explained them to the House. I am sure that the seasonal workers affected will be grateful to him and personally I fail to understand the rather unkind remarks of the last speaker. The hon. Member does not appear to appreciate the fact that a wrong is being righted and that something is being done which the Labour Government neglected to do when they had the opportunity. Therefore I suggest that such remarks as we have heard come with a very bad grace from those benches. I wish to speak for a class who at present are not touched by this Order. I refer to the men employed by the Great Yarmouth Corporation as lavatory attendants. They are ex-service men, they are willing contributors to the National Unemployment Fund and their employers are willing to pay their quota also. By some decision of the Ministry of Labour, they have been prevented hitherto from obtaining the measure of justice and equity to which they are entitled. It is urged that as these lavatories are not attached to a public place of entertainment or some public undertaking, the men are not eligible for unemployment benefit. I want to remind the Minister that this important matter affects hundreds of men in different parts of the borough. Seeing that these men are so deserving, if what is said of them is not only lip-service, surely they stand out for recognition. I appeal on their behalf to the Minister to say that this matter will be reconsidered afresh, and I hope with some improved results.

10.52 p.m.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: This question of seasonal workers is a very important one, and it is regrettable that we have not had more opportunity of discussing it. On many occasions previously when it has been touched upon it has been part of a larger question, and it has never had the consideration it really deserves. Even to-night it is going to have very much less consideration than it requires. It is rather remarkable that we should be asked to pass a Motion to approve an Order of this kind, which has been made on the recommendation of a Statutory Committee whose report contains the statement that they have not had adequate time to consider the question,
and they have not been able to present a full report. I cannot understand why it should have been necessary to put the Statutory Committee in that unfortunate position, but in that case I take it that this is only an interim report and the Order we are considering is only an interim Order.
The Minister of Labour has had this report for three weeks. I do not complain of the time he has taken to consider it. It no doubt requires a great deal of consideration, but if the Minister of Labour required time to consider it, so did the House, and it is a pity that he did not give us the same opportunity of considering this difficult question that he thought it necessary to take for himself. The Minister was enjoined under the Act of 1931 to present forthwith any report that he received from the committee which was set up under that Act, but when the duties of this committee were transferred under the Unemployment Act to the Statutory Committee this provision about the presentation forthwith was deleted. I cannot believe that it was meant that the right hon. Gentleman should sit upon the report as long as he did, and I hope in future that he will remember the injunctions which were laid upon him by the Act of 1931, and, as far as possible, live up to them.
I should like to associate myself with some of those who have thanked the Government for this small improvement. It is an improvement, but I think there may be a disposition to exaggerate its importance. Take first of all the exceptions from the class of seasonal workers which it is proposed to make under this Order. All insured persons who can show that they have an average of 39 weeks' work will be automatically dropped out of the Order and will not be classed as seasonal workers. Thirty-nine weeks of employment on an average is a very high average in these bad days, and if you go to any industry which is in any way depressed you will find very great difficulty in getting workers to prove an average of 39 weeks. I think also the other provision that a man is to be excepted if he can show he has had 150 contributions in four out of five years in the last 10 years will also be very much more difficult to fulfil that would appear at first sight. I cannot believe that in my own constituency it will affect many men. It may, however, affect some
classes, like the salmon fishermen, who have a very long season and have it every year and have very regular employment. They have about seven months, which will give them some 28 contributions, and they will probably be able to make up this condition easily. It is only small classes of that kind to which this particular exception will apply. However, I am glad for it, because I have no doubt it will assist some.
With regard to the other improvements which are made, I would like to mention one, because I pressed it on the Statutory Committee when I had the opportunity of appearing before them, and I feel certain that it will be of great advantage, anyway in my own constituency. That is the provision that, for the purpose of considering work in the off season, uninsurable work will count as well as insurable. It has been a great complaint in my part of the country that salmon fishermen who, for instance, in past years have been accustomed to fish as salmon fishermen for seven months and immediately afterwards to go to the harvest fields, where the farmers are very glad to have them, were penalised by the fact that that did not count for the purpose of giving them unemployment benefit. That was a disadvantage not only to the fishermen, but to the farmer as well, because if you put him under a disadvantage of that kind, there was always a tendency for the salmon fisherman to fight shy of such work. The removal of that condition will be of very great advantage to that class. This particular provision will affect another class who are very numerous in my constituency, namely, women fish workers. When they became unemployed the natural occupation for them to turn to was domestic service, but that also has been outside the scope of unemployment insurance, and any of the better type of girls, as very often they were, who took work of that kind found themselves later on penalised by the fact that they had tried to do work which came to their hand. In these two classes the change recommended by this Order will be of great advantage.
There is one peculiar repercussion which may came from this Order to which I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. It shows how peculiarly these things are dovetailed
into one another and how unexpected are the results of one change in another field of social activity. I am thinking of the provision which is made to exempt workers who are sick. They will have to prove sickness, and it is obvious that the method of proof will be by showing from the National Health Insurance record that they have been sick for that period. That will place an additional strain on the finances of the National Health Insurance system, because immediately any insured person becomes unwell he or she will feel that in his or her interest it is desirable to go to the panel doctor and be certified sick in order to provide the necessary proof later on.

Mr. LOGAN: If in 10 years he has only 150 contributions he will be entirely out of insurance, and it will be a matter for the Poor Law to deal with.

Sir M. McKENZIE WOOD: I do not follow the hon. Member's interruption. My point is that in future there will be a greater tendency to rush to the panel doctor and be certified sick than before, and that will place an additional strain on the finances of the National Health Insurance system, and it is worth while noting that now because the finances of that system require careful watching. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will in the near future be able to bring this question to the notice of the House again, and that there will be another opportunity to discuss it at greater length and perhaps with fuller knowledge than at the present time.

11.4 p.m.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I should also like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing this report before the House. Like other hon. Members, I had hoped for better things, but I feel that we have begun to amend an Act that has proved very harmful to a great many people. I would like to point out that, apart from the people who have been referred to as seasonal workers, there are a good many others who are going to benefit under this scheme of 150 contributions in four out of any five consecutive insurance years in the last 10 complete insurance years, particularly men classified as labourers who have wished to work as labourers at any labour they could find. As the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has pointed out, these men
have been anxious to get work, and they have taken work, and they have been subsequently scheduled as seasonal workers. I will give an example. A labourer looking for work is taken on by a showman and works for him as a labourer. When his work is finished he looks for more work in the open market, but he cannot get any and he works again as a showman's labourer. He then finds that he is scheduled as a showman's labourer and he becomes a seasonal worker, although the only difference between him and any other labourer is that in his anxiety for work he has sought work and found it, and has saved the country paying him benefit during that time.
There is another class of case which I have brought to the notice of the Ministry of Labour, and it relates to such work as bridge painting. I am told that there was in the past no definite work entitled bridge painting. I would point out to the Minister that in the painting of the Tay Bridge we have had the difficulty of men being taken on during the summer and only a few during the winter. These men are labourers and are classified as labourers. When taken on they are not required to show any particular skill in painting; they have a medical examination and that is all. They paint the bridge as labourers, and, having done so, they find themselves scheduled as seasonal workers.
We have gone in for over-classification, which has ruined people in their work in a great many cases—and the men most eager to get work and the men to whom the State has not had to pay out money are the men who have suffered. I think that this scheme of 150 contributions in four out of any five consecutive insurance years will benefit a considerable number of people throughout the country. A great deal has been said about men seasonal workers especially, but I know of a great many cases in which woman workers are concerned. Throughout the country there has been this over-classification and such people as those I have mentioned will be those who will benefit most. I believe that the more we examine this legislation the more we shall find these intricate cases, and I do hope that the Minister will bring forward more of these Orders. Having begun I hope he will
go on with these amendments of the regulations.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am sorry that I am unable to compliment the Minister on this Order. I also want to remind the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that, whatever comments he may make about this party with regard to insurance anomalies, they do not apply to me, for I have been against this Act ever since I first came here, and I am against it now. I have voted against anomalies, and if there was a Division to-night I would go into the Lobby against this Order. If I understand this Order correctly it means that any person who can prove that in any period of four out of any five consecutive insurance years in the last ten complete insurance years has paid 150 contributions he is not to be considered as being in the category of the casually employed.
Let us analyse this wonderful concession. We are told that 20,000 claims have been disallowed every year and that this concession will benefit 23 per cent. of such cases. If my arithmetic is correct, that means that 4,600 claims will be allowed in future, and 15,400 will be disallowed. An hon. Member says "Hear, hear." He may compliment the Minister for making a little gift—

Mr. CURRY: I was congratulating the hon. Member on his arithmetic.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. It is wonderful to be congratulated. I cannot understand why there has been eulogy of the Government. Some hon. Members may, after a couple of hours devoted to this question, rush away to the industrial districts with a feeling that they have salved their consciences, but my conscience will not be salved. If there be justice in the claim of those who come within the computation of 150 weeks what about those who come below that line of demarcation? Is there no other way of solving the problem? As far as I understand things, all the 15,400 people to whom I have referred must in future seek Poor Law relief, and it is even questionable whether they will be entitled to Poor Law relief. An hon. Member whom I interrupted said he did not understand my reference to ten years in connection with the recent Bill amending National Health Insurance. That did
enable people who had contributed a certain amount to get benefits; but if the period is less than four years persons will not qualify under this Order to get sickness benefits.
We have been told by the Minister that there are so many complications that it is utterly impossible to deal with all of them at this late hour. Why should anomalies which have existed for so long be brought before the House when there are only a couple of hours available for a discussion of them? We have had Debates on matters not nearly so important. I do not want to be personal and suggest that the Minister wants to rush things. I am blaming the National Government. Hon. Members opposite have twitted the Labour party with having passed the Anomalies Act, but if this Order were to go to a Division to-night they themselves would vote for it, although it would leave these 15,400 people without any benefit. They are pledged to support the National Government and will do so no matter what it is that they propose. I have not seen any of those hon. Members objecting to going into the Lobby. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to twit the Labour Government; he may be justified, but there is no justification for other Members of the National Government laughing at statements that are made and then going into the Lobby and voting for things that the hon. Member for Gorbals condemned. There is neither reason nor sense in that. This is a question of 15,400 people, Poor Law cases, in the badly depressed areas. In the City of Liverpool and on the dockside, one person in six is unemployed, and the problem is a difficult one.
The Minister has come forward, in these days of depression when hon. Members from all parts of the country are complaining of the poverty of their areas, with qualifications to enable him to give a concession to the seasonal workers, which is that over the average of four years there must be 150 contributions, that is to say 37½ contributions per year. In the depressed areas, any seasonal worker who has been employed for 37½ weeks in the year thinks that that is very satisfactory indeed. I know the Minister has a very onerous job, but I am not going to throw bouquets at him; I shall criticise him and the Government
for bringing before the House, just before we break up for 13 weeks, something which will be no presentation to the unemployed. I should have considered that the workers could have paid into a fund, whether it be 37½ or only 30 contributions per annum, based on a five-year average, and that there could be some system, within the solvency of the Ministry of Labour Fund, of paying people who are casually employed.
I agree that benefit will accrue to 4,600 people, who will be allowed benefit, but there are 15,400 who do not come within the purview of what we are now asked to pass at such short notice. The injustice still remains. There is no free fund of contributions from which people who have paid in and are willing to work could receive benefit. If people contribute to an unemployment insurance fund, and you are not able to give them benefit, you have no right to retain their contributions. The benefits that may be credited in regard to weeks of sickness, are one of the debits that may be placed on both sides of the account. It is both a debit and a credit in the bookkeeping in regard to that person. That is a great concession, and I welcome it. It will aid certain people who, owing to sickness, would never qualify for benefit at all. The Minister will be bringing forward later on new regulations dealing with a more important matter, but I hope that when he comes back rejuvenated and with more optimism than he has at present he will introduce an amending Bill to deal with this matter which will give more satisfaction to the House.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. CURRY: I rise to reply, in a sense, to the hon. Member who has just spoken. I should like this discussion to end on a more appreciative note than he has just sounded. I should have thought it would have been obvious to him that the burdens even of the distressed areas will not be any heavier if they are reduced by 20 per cent., which is what the Order does if the hon. Member's arithmetic is as correct as I thought it was.
I welcome this Order because I have always felt that the question of the seasonal worker is a very important question. I have always thought that the seasonal worker was being treated in a way in which we had no right to treat him from the point of view of morality.
It seems to me to be fundamentally wrong to accept contributions from anyone if you deny him benefits. It would have been open to the State to say that it would not accept these workers as a risk, and that they would not be allowed to come within the field of insurance, but, once they have been allowed to come within the field of insurance and have been accepted as a risk, it has always seemed to me to be immoral to refuse to carry them as properly insured persons. The Order will almost entirely get rid of the seasonal worker difficulty in my constituency. Almost the only seasonal workers I know of there are those people, generally shop-girls, who discover seasonal work in the East Coast resorts as waitresses during the summer, and come back to find that they are classed as seasonal workers and have lost their insurance rights.

Mr. LOGAN: And Members of Parliament.

Mr. CURRY: There are a few unemployed ex-Labour Members of Parliament in the district which I represent, and I am sure the hon. Member's compassion will be aroused when I tell him that their appeals to their miners' association for special benefits fell upon deaf ears. These girls used to go to holiday resorts, and, on coming back, found that their insurance rights had gone. There is another class of seasonal workers, generally boys who are ordinarily engaged in pit work and other forms of employment, and who at times get some sort of employment at ice cream vending. I have often tried to get the Ministry of Labour to tell me just what is the season for ice cream, especially on the North East Coast, but it is very difficult to get such information. These two classes of cases will be dealt with under the Order, and therefore I am thankful for it; but I should like to join in the chorus that we have heard to-night, of hope that this is the beginning of the revision of the position with regard to seasonal workers, and not the end.
I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his accession to the office of Minister of Labour. He and I have known each other for a good number of years in the field of political activity and I know from personal acquaintance of him of the great industry
that he is capable of and the enthusiastic application that he makes of that industry to any task to which he sets his hand. He has before him one of the most difficult tasks that could fall to any man and I am sure I voice the opinion and the wish of all who are his personal friends in saying we hope he will meet those tasks successfully, and that in so doing he will bring all those benefits to the insured population which I am sure it would be his wish to do.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN: With the leave of the House I will reply to questions which have been put. I should ill-requite the kindness of Members in all parts of the House if I entered into the wide and controversial issues which have been debated. I will refrain from drawing the obvious distinction between above and below the Gangway in the matter of the Anomalies Act. I only say a word about its history because of a special phrase in the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. Davies). If he will take the care to examine the evidence of some of his friends before the Commission before the Act of 1931, he will not repeat the statement he made to-night about their attitude in the same form. I leave it there.
It is my duty to refer any further consideration that may be necessary of this matter to the Committee for their observations and I assure the House that I shall read every word that has been said to-night and watch the application of the Order with very great care and take what action I consider is necessary in the light of circumstances. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was afraid that the 39 weeks provision might bring in other classes. That provision is designed to exclude people and I do not see how the ablest lawyer could turn it into an inclusive arrangement. I can assure the hon. Member that his fears are quite unfounded. He asked about juveniles. Of course, the intention of the Section to which he referred is to protect the worker with a regular record of industrial insurance. Contributions on behalf of juveniles for education are far too remote from that intention. That is why the Committee made the recommendation they did. My hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), who raised
the case of clerical workers, and especially those working in bookmakers' offices, overlooked the fact that in the analysis made of the various classes of workers, bookmakers' clerks are included in one of the tables, and I think that the particular workers to whom he referred will be found to be bookmakers' clerks and will be benefited by this Order.

Mr. WHITE: I am not very well satisfied that you can classify them as bookmakers' clerks. It is an important matter, as there are many thousands of them, and I shall be very glad if my right hon. Friend can keep the point in mind.

Mr. BROWN: I will keep it in mind. I think that they are the kind of workers to be included as clerical workers. It is essential to point out the type of workers affected either in the health resorts or the other classes. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. Davies) questioned paragraph 6 (1). He must understand that the aggregate of the seasons there referred to is not the same as the individual's spell of employment. Let me give him a formula, which I would ask him to study in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If the season is 36 weeks and the individual works 39 weeks, he has three weeks off-seasonal work to count towards the 25 per cent. required by paragraph 4 (1, a). If the season equals 36 weeks, the off-season equals 16 weeks, so that he has three weeks towards four out of 16 weeks. That is how it will work, and not in the way that he imagines. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) put a definite question about the actual work. He asked whether it was work for which Health Insurance stamps, or any work? It means any work, using the term in its widest sense.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does sickness count as exemption? Does the hon. Gentleman say that weeks of sickness are credited as if the man was at work, in the same way as they are with stamps, or do weeks of sickness reduce the period to which the 25 per cent. applies?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member is quite right; it will be the panel which will be the proof in this matter. That, I think, answers the hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. McKenzie Wood) and the hon. Member for Gorbals. There was
another question put by the hon. Member for Banff about the last paragraph in the report. May I say to him two things. The Committee would be the last to claim plenary inspiration for any paragraph in the report, and I am sure that they will read his remarks on the paragraph with the greatest interest and will take notice of what he said. If that be not so, I will see that their attention is directed to it, so that they themselves may think over what they said.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also direct their attention to the question about people not looking for work?

Mr. BROWN: I have already said that I will look with the greatest care at everything that has been said throughout the Debate.

Mr. S. DAVIES: I put a question on Clause 4, in respect of which I stated definitely that the position had been worsened compared with the Commissioner's decision.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member will find that he misinterpreted that matter. Instead of being, as he thinks, a worsening of the position, it is a rectification of the phraseology in favour of the seasonal workers.

Mr. DAVIES: I am sorry, but I really cannot accept that statement, because I have seen the decision of the Commissioner applied in so many cases.

Mr. BROWN: That is a difference of opinion that we will not argue to-night. We must see how things work out in practice both in his experience, and in my experience as Minister watching the operation of this Order. I am grateful to hon. Members for co-operating with me in passing this Order. My sole desire, as it is theirs, is to see that those seasonal workers get benefit under the Order, and I am glad that hon. Members have co-operated with me to that end.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Anomalies) (Seasonal Workers) Order, 1935, laid before Parliament in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 55 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882 to 1935, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the township of Cliviger, in the rural district of Burnley, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1935, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882 to 1935, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of parts of the city and royal burgh of Dundee, in the county of Angus, which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1935, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts 1882 to 1935, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban districts of Wirral and Neston, parts of the urban district of Bebington and Ellesmere Port, and part of the rural district of Chester, all in the county palatine of Chester, which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1935, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1935, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the urban district of Bebington, in the county palatine of Chester, which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1935, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1935, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the borough of Gosport, in the county of Southampton, which was presented on the 15th day of July, 1935, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1935, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban district of Barton-upon-Humber, in the administrative county of the Parts of Lindsey, Lincolnshire, which was presented on the 3rd day of July, 1935, be approved."—[Captain, Austin Hudson.]

Orders of the Day — VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (PAYING PATIENTS) BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

And, it being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER Adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.